"Adult supervision"

[Keith Moore]

> Comments like "this will kill the Internet" or "this won't fly" are
> completely unacceptable form of communications.  If one believes
> something will kill the Internet they should have to technically defend
> it and debate it in depth.  There are no KIngs right?

Mumble.  After you've debated something in depth a dozen or more times it
starts to get old.   Should IESG members really have to debate with each
document author or working group chair (for instance) whether it's okay to
assume that a device or server will only be accessible from a local, trusted
network and that therefore no authentication is needed?  Or whether it's okay
to reuse port 80 with a protocol that is almost but not quite HTTP?

And while I entirely agree that a single IESG person should not be able to
dictate architectural constraints to a working group, which would you
rather have: 

- the IESG member's concern ignored,
- the group's work delayed until there is a document that outlines the issues
  in detail and imposes carefully-considered constraints, or
- the group given immediate feedback and direction as to how to work around
  the concern, allowing them to continue their work even if they don't like
  the feedback and direction?

In about 90% of cases I suspect you'd agree that the IESG member's concern is
valid, though perhaps not expressed as well as it might be, and the
constraints imposed might be either overbroad or insufficient to address the
concern.  (of course, the other 10% is a problem...)  But from personal
experience, getting agreement on a document that outlines the concerns and
constraints around a thorny issue can take several years - even when there's a
general agreement that the concerns are valid and that some constraints are
appropriate.  For this reason I'm firmly convinced that ADs need to have
fairly broad discretion to make tactical decisions about things that affect
the Internet.  But I'd also like there to be some way to deter ADs from being
entirely capricious.

IMHO we already have mechanisms in place that can deal with these problems,
what is lacking is an understanding of how to apply them.  i.e. when an AD
imposes constraints that a WG chair or author feels are unreasonable:

a. the affected party asks the AD for a formal statement of the constraints
   and the reasons for them, copying the IETF chair
b. the AD is expected to reply within a reasonable amount of time
c. if the affected party still doesn't agree, he/she can appeal to IESG and
   if necessary, to IAB.

No, we don't have a process that formally specifies exactly how the 
affected party makes a request of the AD, how long the AD has to respond, etc.
And I don't think we need to work out a separate process and timeline for
resolving every separate kind of dispute.  What we need is someone whose job
it is to make sure that disputes are worked out in a timely and visible
fashion.   I personally would trust the IETF chair to make such assurances,
having worked closely with both the former and current chairs and knowing 
them to be diligent about such things.  But maybe there's such a widespread
distrust of anyone who claims to be part of the power structure that we need
an ombudsman who is appointed by nomcom but separate from either IAB or IESG.
(oops...solution space again.)

Keith