Charters, "normal process" versus ISOC, etc. (was: Re

hardie at qualcomm.com hardie at qualcomm.com
Mon May 19 11:52:47 CEST 2003


At 11:05 AM +0300 5/19/03, Pekka Savola wrote:
>On Mon, 19 May 2003, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>  > I agree with Scott. I trust Harald and I would be entirely happy for
>>  this work to be done in the General area. But there is no problem about
>>  doing it in an interim area, except that it means finding an interim AD
>>  as well as WG Chairs.
>
>I'm fine with either approach.
>
>But remember that one of the other problems was the shallowness of the
>pool for IESG positions.  The chosen AD would have to sit on all IESG
>teleconferences and take part in those ballots, read the drafts put before
>the IESG etc.etc. too. (Except if these are specifically designated out of
>scope when chartering the temporary AD "position".)
>
>Depending on the level of responsibility, it would be huge task -- and I
>rather think that a relatively open process to pick a chair, like with
>problem-statement, would be both the fastest and the easiest approach.

The corollary work load also worries me.  If one of the concerns here is
to get someone who can focus very tightly on these issues, then asking
them to take on the role of an AD seems to be an issue.  There is
also a strong risk that having to do the work *as it is now* on a daily
basis may limit the individual's ability to imagine it in new ways.  From
the outside, I know I personally had a concern about how focused on 
tool development
the IESG seemed to me to be.  While I retain the concern, there is no question
that having to do the work now leads me to anticipate the new balloting system
and other planned tools. That may, in turn, limit my ability to 
wonder whether the
basic question of how review gets done should or should not include a ballot.
That I still do wonder about  it may be an artefact of the question 
being raised
in the wider IETF, or it may reflect my own cussedness.  But that tension
would, I believe, be something any new AD for this effort would face.

This may not be an issue if the real work of imagining the future is done
by the working group, and the chair(s) of the working groups are taking
the lead role in developing the consensus around that vision.  If that is
the case, then who takes the documents from the working group to
the wider community seems to me almost a non-issue.  The real question
is how to get a chair or set of chairs.

To make a concrete proposal, then, let me suggest that we do something
akin to our normal process but upside-down.  Have the working group
in the General Area, with Harald as AD tasked with finding the chairs,
but have the working group chairs be confirmed by the NomCom
(or a special purpose NomCom).  This will allow the community to have
a voice in the selection in a way that derives from our current process.
Have any replacement of the chairs require confirmation by this group
as well, so that this oversight by the community continues.  Given the
confidentiality of that body, normal personnel confidentiality can be
maintained, and those being considered can keep their privacy until
a selection is announced.

			regards,
				Ted Hardie


More information about the Problem-statement mailing list