Delegation of power (was RE: Section 2.4 of draft-ietf-problem-statement-00.txt)

[Jonne.Soininen at nokia.com]

Hello everybody,

I wonder if the real problem is hidden in this discussion. I like what is written in the problem statement document about the problem of the concentration of power, but maybe there is not enough analysis. I wouldn't think that it should be IESG to delegate any power to anybody, but the real problem is that it seems that IESG has any power of its own. To my understanding, the IETF community should have the power, and it should choose how it delegates to power to anybody else. The WG chairs, IAB,  and the IESG could be the objects of the delegation of the power. 

Getting any power delegated to anybody (of those three or anybody else) means also that there is a certain responsibility with that power to fulfill certain expectations of the community. Thus, there has to be accountability and transparency in the process that it can be monitored that the people that are representing the community are doing a good job. And of course, the community should have a mechanism to directly influence to the set of people that are representing it. I don't believe that the current mechanisms (NomCom, ID Tracker, etc) completely do this.

I do think that the real problem is that IESG has any power of its own. We should not discuss which powers IESG should delegate "down" to WG chairs, and WGs, but what power the IETF community (e.g. represented by the WGs) should delegate "up" to WG chairs, IESG, and IAB - and how to monitor that they do their job. 

Cheers,

Jonne.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Keith Moore [mailto:moore at cs.utk.edu]
> Subject: Re: Section 2.4 of draft-ietf-problem-statement-00.txt
> 
> 
> 
> > >The above phrase is a judgement call by saying "too few".
> > 
> > Absolutely. It is the judgement of many folks that the 
> limited number 
> > of people in power is a root cause of the problems we are seeing. I 
> > think this is a fair characterization of that view. 
> 
> change 'judgement' to 'belief' and I'd probably agree with you.
> however I do not think it's reasonable for this document to claim,
> without examination or support, that this 'belief' has any validity.
> 
> > >     Authority in the IETF is explicitly concentrated in the hands
> > >     of the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) rather
> > >     than being delegated.
> > 
> > That's not a problem statement. Lots of organizations are 
> > successfully run without delegation of power. The problem (as some 
> > people see it) is that there isn't enough delegation here, i.e., 
> > there are too few people doing the work and holding the power.
> 
> as you indicate, this is a belief, not an observation.  I 
> think we would do
> well to separate observations from beliefs. 
> 
> > >     Although the appeal process has been exercised a number of
> > >     times, there has never been a member recall, so in practice
> > >     Area Directors are rarely sanctioned.
> > 
> > Again, that's not a problem statement. The problem is insufficient 
> > accountability. 
> 
> another belief.  is there any evidence of this?  for that 
> matter, is there any
> reason to believe that increasing the accountability of ADs 
> is going to
> improve the quality of either WG or IETF output?
> 
> > I think trying to find "objective evidence" is quickly going to get 
> > into serious finger pointing. I think it should suffice that there 
> > are a bunch of people who have a reasonable amount of anecdotal 
> > evidence.
> 
> I'm not sure what anecdotal evidence is, particularly when 
> many people seem
> to have difficultiy distinguishing between observations and beliefs. 
> Especially when they're frustrated.  I agree with you that 
> trying to find
> objective evidence might be a rathole, but let's label 
> beliefs as such and try
> to remember that what is actually going on may be different, 
> or at least more
> subtle.
> 
> Collecting the various beliefs and noting the contrasts 
> between them might be
> a useful exercise in itself.
> 
> > The *problem* (as some see it) is that the current process allows, 
> > and has seen, long periods of good work by a WG come to an end with 
> > one or two people stopping the work at the IESG level.
> 
> >From a different perspective, working groups often labor for 
> a very long time
> in nonproductive directions, producing specifications that 
> obviously cause
> problems or fail to meet essential criteria, and don't seem 
> to be able to
> accept outside input.  And then one or two people in IESG are 
> all that keeps
> IETF from blessing shoddy work. 
> 
> Even then, the work rarely gets 'stopped'.  In four years on 
> IESG, I can't
> recall a single instance where this happened.  (I can think 
> of cases where the
> work probably should have been stopped)
> 
> 
> > Indefinitely delayed == blocked. If a document is simply 
> temporarily 
> > delayed for a short period of time, that's not a 
> significant problem.
> 
> is there evidence of infinite delay?   the secretariat keeps 
> stats on these
> things.  several years ago we had problems with excessive 
> delays; changes 
> were then made to IESG's balloting to try to bound the amount 
> of time that
> documents could be delayed without providing feedback.  as 
> far as I can tell
> those changes were effective.
> 
> 
> > The quality control issue is one aspect, and I agree is a different 
> > thing. But this section is talking about documents being blocked 
> > "without good reason being given".
> 
> which is blatently false.  ADs are not allowed to vote Discuss without
> giving a reason.  of course there is the question of whether this is
> a good reason, but that's what appeals are for.
> 
> > The point is that the current 
> > system leaves open the possibility for abuse,
> 
> *any* system leaves open the possibility for abuse.  *any* 
> system can be
> manipulated.  no system can remove the need for sober judgement,
> trust, and goodwill.
> 
> > I think it's a 
> > problem enough that people perceive a problem and therefore 
> have lost 
> > faith in IESG practices.
> 
> it's a valid point that the 'perception' of a problem is 
> harmful by itself.
> we just need to be careful to distinguish perception/belief 
> from things that
> can be observed more objectively and reliably.
> 
> Keith
>