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

[Jonne.Soininen at nokia.com]

Hi Brian,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian at hursley.ibm.com]
> Subject: Definition of power and responsibility [Re: Delegation of
> power(wasRE: Section 2.4 ofdraft-ietf-problem-statement-00.txt)]
> 
> 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).
> 

Yes, I know about 2026, 2850, and Harald's document(s). However, I am not sure that NomCom is the right tool anymore to review the IETF management. It seems to be to secretive (vs. open), and at least I have the feeling that though you give input to the NomCom members you do not really get feedback if your input was considered or even understood.  (And it seemed to me that the NomCom WG had already decided in the beginning that the process will not change.) Anyways, I do not feel that it is direct enough. 

BTW, I tried to subscribe to the poisson mailing list, and to find to find the archive, but I couldn't. It seems that the pointers on the old Poisson WG Web page are out of date. Could you provide with the current links, please.

> 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.

I think that our notion of 'responsibility', and 'power' seem to be different. This may be due to the fact that I am not a native English speaker. However, I would rather see that the quality control may be a direct consequence of the power or even a (sub)power itself - not necessarily a responsibility. I would consider as responsibilities, for instance, reporting decisions and justifying the usage by technical argumentation in public. 

In addition, there may be a problem in understanding what is quality control. To some quality control justifies changing the usage scenarios of a protocol as quality control, where to others quality control is merely to check that a protocol works as specified.

Cheers,

Jonne.

> 
> 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
>