"Adult supervision"

[Bound, Jim]

I will kindly respond below to your mail.

But what I am asking is pretty simple.  Use language that is clear and
direct in response to ideas in the IETF community, and defend them as we
all have to do.  This is completely orthogonal to your mail below.

I want to see us build a statement or something from this work here that
kills this communications style and behavior in the IETF.  It is simply
wrong and all other standards bodies have code of ethics and a set of
rules for their leaders to abide by.  I want all our leaders to have
something like this here in the IETF.  Go see IEEE code of conduct and
proceedings rule sets on the web.  Or ITU or ANSI.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Keith Moore [mailto:moore at cs.utk.edu] 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2003 1:17 PM
> To: Bound, Jim
> Cc: moore at cs.utk.edu; mellon at nominum.com; 
> problem-statement at alvestrand.no
> Subject: Re: "Adult supervision"
> 
> 
> > 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?

Of course not but that is not what Ted L's. mail or mine was about at
all.

> 
> 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: 

Hmmmm I did not say that nor Ted L.  But I agree.

> 
> - the IESG member's concern ignored,

No.

> - the group's work delayed until there is a document that 
> outlines the issues
>   in detail and imposes carefully-considered constraints, or

Yes.  Recall my mail here on that we must chase out assumptions in
addition to the problem statements we are doing now.  No one picked up
on this here but we must have discussion of assumptions prior to work
that is controversial or compromise is not evident in time-to-market
time frame.

> - 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?

Only after the above has been done.  Features should not be killed with
out the issues and assumptions are widely discussed and brought out in
the WG.  The AD should force this with the Chairs if they don't do it on
their own.

It is a management process that we should recommend here.

> 
> 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.

I agree with the above.  But in their communications they need to make
it clear in depth what they want.  The other reason for this is an AD
could hide behind the process and have no clue technically on the
subject manner themselves.  Which is fine but bring in who is advising
them that can state the discretion.

I view the WG Chairs as the line managers, the IESG as the Sr. VP
managers, and the IESG as the Executive Council.  What we have to do is
make sure the Executive Council does not get every single issue up to
their body and empower Sr. VPs and Managers with discretion and then
provide and IETF rule set and process that helps the process work.

ADs and WG Chairs need to work together better on the issues.

I believe flushing out peoples assumptions early on in WGs will help all
the way around.

For example.  Charlie Perkins and Hesham Soliman are coming from two
entirely different places on how Mobility will be deployed and used.
Jim Bound and Christian Huitema likewise are same on how IPv6 Transition
is deployed.  Yet we have not had enough discussion in both cases why
each of the above believe this and that affects which solutions and
designs are driven.  I would also argue that once these assumptions are
open for any two principles or set of principles in WGs then the working
group can participate in the solution for compromise.  Put a poor AD or
WG Chair in the middle of this and we get chaos and no consensus.  It is
the assumptions that need to be debugged.

> 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:

I don't agree we are still not in tune in flushing out assumptions which
is deep rooted.

> 
> 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.

Agree but there is an issue before this process during WG deliberations.
Ted L. and my issue on this thread can happen in a WG meeting or even in
a hallway.  What you state above the end result I would argue of an
earlier problem before we use the process above.

And we are talking about the behavior and communications style of the
AD, WG Chair, or WG participant too not just the process.  

> 
> 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,

Only if we document what their job is and a guidance model for such
decisions.

> 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. 

Well we must trust our partners in the community.  But I do think we
need rules and documentation just in case the wrong thing is done so it
can be corrected if we should get less than optimal people as chair
tomorrow.  But I have no issue here with the current chair and supported
them to the last nomcom.  But that is irrelevant to having a documented
process, additional role definitions, et al for not just chair but all
positions of leadership.  And I would include guidelines for the
reviewers we are discussing too.

/jim
> (oops...solution space again.)
> 
> Keith
>