Charters, "normal process" versus ISOC, etc. (was: Re: OPEN ISSUE: Quality Process WG Charter)

[John C Klensin]

--On Friday, 16 May, 2003 11:54 -0400 Margaret Wasserman 
<mrw at windriver.com> wrote:

>> I don't think this group should propose a charter for that
>> group.
>>
>> And I'm not sure I even agree with the text in the process
>> document about how that group should proceed.
>
> Would you like to propose an alternative?

Margaret, I'd like to propose something as a strawman, partially 
based on further thought after my comments about process 
yesterday.  This is a radical suggestion and may not be a good 
idea, but I'd like to see if it resonates with others or at 
least stimulates some discussion and other suggestions.

We seem to have three perspectives/ camps at the moment:

	(1) Use the normal process, including assigning these
	working groups to the IETF Chair (i.e., the "General
	Area").  That means having the Chair appointed by, and
	serving at the pleasure of, the IETF Chair, the IETF
	Chair making decisions about what WG decisions get
	processed by the IESG, etc.
	
	(2) Some people are deeply concerned about this, seeing
	the IESG as the problem and resistant to reform and the
	IESG generally, and perhaps the Chair in particular, as
	subject to inherent conflicts of interest in a reform
	process.   Many of them lean toward an ISOC-controlled
	process.
	
	(3) Some (perhaps very few) of us are more trustful of
	the IESG as a group, but are uncomfortable about the
	General Area, the notion of the IETF Chair wearing this
	hat in addition to all of the others, and the
	implications the first approach causes with the appeals
	process.  We also don't see an ISOC-based approach as
	really being feasible.

So, again, at least as something to think about, I suggest a 
fourth option:  We ask the IESG to expeditiously create a new, 
but temporary, area for process review and reform, with, say, a 
one-year expiration period requiring community assent to keep it 
going any longer.  We ask the Nomcom to select an AD for that 
area, again asking them to expedite the action.  The IESG 
appoints one of its number (with the Chair/ General Area AD 
being the obvious choice since the workload would be the same as 
under option (1)) to fill in during the interim.

What does this do for us?

	* Like the ISOC plan, it puts someone in as "responsible
	AD" for this work who is selected/ designated for the
	purpose and who is not part of the existing IESG.  The
	reduces suspicions about conflicts of interest.  And...
	
	* It also reduces concerns about available skill sets
	(since the Nomcom would be selecting someone
	specifically for this role) and time availability (since
	the chosen AD would have no other WG or external
	responsibilities).
	
	* It is very much part of the existing process model,
	doesn't raise special concerns about appeals, etc.
	
	* And I think we can assume that a person who was
	designated as responsible for this area would raise a
	public outcry --if necessary to the point of filing
	recall petitions-- if any of the blocking actions of
	which the IESG has been accused occurred wrt the outputs
	these relevant WGs.   Indeed, if I were to advise the
	Nomcom, I would suggest that willingness to go that far
	--and good sense about when or whether to do so-- would
	be an important criterion for a prospective candidate.

And, to preempt any paranoid speculations, I don't want the job.

       john