OPEN ISSUE: Improvement WG Oversight

[Margaret Wasserman]

The process document current says:

>There is an open question regarding who should have oversight
>responsibility for the IETF Improvement WG, including management of
>the WG chairs and approving the output for publication by the RFC
>editor. The two primary options are an IESG-driven approach
>overseen by the General AD, or an ISOC-driven approach overseen by
>the ISOC President. These two proposals are further explained in
>the next two sections.

I think that the Improvement WG should use the IESG-driven
process.

The IESG-driven process is the usual process that the IETF
uses to produce all types of IETF documents, and I don't see
any reason why a different process is needed for us to update
our own organization or processes.  Our current organization
and processes are documented in BCP RFCs that can and should
be changed by the IETF using our existing process.

The IESG members are our selected leaders, and I trust them
to run this process fairly and openly.

I also have three major concerns about the alternative (the
ISOC-driven approach):

   - The ISOC-driven approach effectively cedes control of
     the IETF's processes to ISOC.  I would rather keep
     control of these processes within the IETF.
   - The current Nomcom processes will require some significant
     modification to apply in this situation, as they are not
     intended to (a) produce documents, (b) produce results
     that represent community consensus, (c) have an adequate
     appeals process for this situation.
   - It is not the job of the ISOC President or the ISOC BoTs
     to determine consensus of the IETF community.  That
     responsibility belongs to the IETF Chair and the IESG.

Even though there are issues with the current IETF processes,
I don't think that they are fatally flawed.  IMO, we are
better off using our current well-defined, well-understood
processes than inventing a new set of processes just for
this work.

Margaret