Definition of power and responsibility [Re: Delegation of power(was RE: Section 2.4 ofdraft-ietf-problem-statement-00.txt)]

[Brian E Carpenter]

I think the word 'delegation' is causing confusion. I apologise
for having used it in the first place.

It's clear already that the IESG's power is granted to it
by the IETF. An organisation as complex as the IETF can't
function without a management structure. Each year, through
the Nomcom process, the IETF renews its management structure
and grants powers to the renewed IESG and IAB. The powers granted
to the IAB are defined in RFC 2850. The powers granted to the
IESG are to some extent defined in RFC 2026 (and its updates now
being agreed in the IPR WG). The other powers granted to the
IESG are badly defined, which is why Harald has drafted two documents
defining them (being debated on the old poisson list).

What we seem to lack [new problem statement coming up...]
is a clear definition of the powers granted to WG chairs
and editors.

Also, there is no power without responsibility. By granting the
power to publish or not publish an RFC to the IESG, we have
also given the IESG the responsibility for quality control.
And when they carry out this responsibility, please don't
blame them.

So, can we stop talking about either excessive concentration
of power, or about delegation, and start talking about the need
for clear definitions of what powers and responsibilities the
IETF grants to *each* level in our structure?

   Brian

Keith Moore wrote:
> 
> > To my understanding, the IETF community should have the
> > power, and it should choose how it delegates to power to anybody else.
> 
> The community does have the power, but most of the power is not
> delegated.  Instead it is exercised directly.  Individuals have
> power and influence by contributing time and effort to working groups or
> other document writing efforts.
> 
> The nomcom is the means by which power is delegated to IAB and IESG.
> 
> The power isn't delegated down by IESG and IAB any more than it is
> delegated up from working groups.  Rather it is sort of a tug-of-war.
> 
> IESG recognizes that it cannot produce anything useful by itself, that
> it is dependent on working groups and document authors to do the bulk of
> the work that goes into producing documents.   IESG also realizes
> that it cannot function effectively if IESG pushes back on working
> groups too much.  This is another reason that IESG members
> sometimes "hold their noses" and let poor quality work through.
> 
> It's not clear, however, whether working group participants see the
> value in IESG - in trying to make sure quality is maintained, in trying
> to provide comprehensive review, in trying to ensure that processes are
> followed for the sake of fairness and accountability, and especially in
> trying to minimize conflicts between competing concerns.  Many
> participants seem to see IESG only as a barrier to completion of
> their work, one which does not provide any value.  I don't think that's
> an accurate perception, but sadly, I suspect it's a widespread one.
> 
> Ketih