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

[Jeanette Hofmann]

On 18 May 2003 at 10:51, John C Klensin wrote:

> 

John, your fourth option sounds like a very good solution to me. For principle 
reasons, the IESG should rather not lead the reform process. Even if the 
IESG members in general, and the General Area AD in particular, are wise, 
experienced and diplomatic enough to lead this process in a neutral way, a 
new AD selected specifically for this purpose would provide for a  cleaner 
mechanism, which gave less reason for suspicion. 

Jeanette
> 
> --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
> 
>