OPEN ISSUE: Improvement WG Oversight

[Brian E Carpenter]

Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> 
> 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.

I concur, for many reasons.

    Brian

> 
> 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

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian E Carpenter 
Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM 
On assignment at the IBM Zurich Laboratory, Switzerland