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

[Margaret Wasserman]

Hi John,

First, a point of clarification...

The current process document suggests two WGs:

         - A long-term WG to work on IETF organization
                 and standards-track process.
         - A near-term WG to focus on iterative
                 improvements to WG quality processes.

Would your proposal apply to both WGs?  Would it apply to other
ongoing process-oriented WGs, such as the nomcom WG?

At 10:51 AM 5/18/2003 -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
>>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.

I think that this is an interesting suggestion.  It may present
a reasonable compromise between the people who would demand
that an "outsider" (i.e. someone who isn't a current I*
member) oversee this process, and those who would insist on
keeping control of the IETF's process definition inside the
IETF.

Honestly, I don't know enough about the IETF Chair's work load
to know if serving as the responsible AD for these WGs would
present an overloading problem for the IETF chair, and I would
trust the IETF chair to run this process both fairly and
openly, but I do understand that having the IETF chair serve
as a responsible AD effectively removes one step in the appeals
process (since responsible AD == IETF chair), which isn't
great.

>         (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.

I don't really fall into this area -- I'm trust the IESG
both individually and as a group.  However, I consider your
alternative _much_ better than the ISOC-driven approach.

>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.

In general, this looks like a workable proposal to me. I'm not
sure that your approach is necessary, but I also don't have
any serious objections to it.

I am not sure about the one year period -- I think that two years
is a better initial period, given the scope of this work, perhaps
with one year extensions after that?  We also might want to
consider something like a ~1-1/2 year initial term to sync up
the renewals with the regular nomcom cycle.

Would this person serve like a regular member of the IESG in
other respects (i.e. attend IESG meetings, review documents, etc.)?

I've been told that there are already some problems with the
size of the IESG -- too many people for certain types of
decision making.  How bad is this problem?  And how much
would it affect the group to add one more IESG member?

>What does this do for us?
[...]
>         * It is very much part of the existing process model,
>         doesn't raise special concerns about appeals, etc.

This is very important.  Inventing a new process, or
making major modifications to an existing process, just for
one or two WGs seems like a very bad idea.

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

...which might be an important qualification ;-).

Margaret