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

[John C Klensin]

Ted,

Let me play devil's advocate for a moment here...

--On Monday, 19 May, 2003 10:52 -0700 "hardie at qualcomm.com" 
<hardie at qualcomm.com> wrote:

>> 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".)

For whatever it is worth, if we can't find a pool of people, 
even if it is small, to fill an IESG position of this type, most 
of the problem-statement effort is on the wrong track because 
real solutions are impossible unless we can dramatically reduce 
the IESG workload or de-skill the AD roles.  I haven't seen 
proposals, or even real "problem statements" lately that address 
either of those topics.  We are still assuming that, while the 
system needs tuning, it is not fundamentally broken.   If we 
can't find people to serve on the IESG for each a one-year term, 
we are "fundamentally broken" and had better deal with that.

I don't think we are in that state, but maybe I'm wrong.

>> 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
>...

This is a reasonable concern.  But, again in my devil's advocate 
role, let's turn it around.  We've heard multiple statements to 
the effect that "IETF Chair" is a full-time job.  No one has 
come forward and said that it is really a walk in the park that 
can be done effectively with a few mornings a week.  So, we are 
going to add at least a couple of WGs to the IETF Chair's 
workload, and expect that he will be able to effectively 
coordinate the efforts and output of those WGs with the nomcom, 
lpr, and maybe some other efforts that potentially overlap it. 
That is potentially a lot of work.  If Harald can say "I've got 
the extra cycles, no problem", then there is no argument for a 
separate area independent of the concerns others have had about 
the process of the current IESG supervising this work.    But I 
haven't heard him say that yet.

Similarly, being expected to participate in the work of the IESG 
is both an advantage and a disadvantage.  You've identified the 
latter.  The advantage is that such an AD would get a realistic 
view of what might, and might not, be feasible (at least barring 
the very radical sort of change I hypothesize above if we really 
can't fill IESG positions).  That view would be, IMO, very 
important in managing the relevant WG(s).  And its absence is 
one of the reasons why some of us have been reluctant to see the 
"ISOC management" plan go forward.

And, of course, the IESG and the community could agree --and 
make sure the nomcom knows it-- that this particular AD was 
expected to take "no objection" positions on any technical 
documents originating in other areas.    I don't know whether 
that is desirable of not, but it would have a big impact on the 
workload for that AD and doesn't require any new procedures (see 
below).  One couldn't prevent such an AD from reading all the 
documents and taking positions, of course, but, if the question 
is the total workload, that option would change the equation.

> 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.

Absolutely, as long as things go smoothly.  If, for whatever 
reason, they don't, someone is going to need to act like an AD 
with all of the usual authority and responsibility of oversee 
the work of chairs and editors, mediate disagreements and 
first-stage appeals, etc.

> 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.

Ted, I think we need to be very pragmatic about this. 
Pragmatism argues for no new procedures if there is any other 
option.  "The 'General AD' does it" does not require any new 
procedures.  "Make a new area with a temporary appointment from 
within the IESG and a longer-term one by the Nomcom" requires no 
new procedures.  In both cases, the WG(s) are plain, ordinary, 
WGs, with normal reporting chains to an AD, which obviously 
requires no new procedures.  In either case, the AD using an 
open process, such as the one used to select this WG's 
co-chairs, to pick the WG leadership does not require any new 
procedures.

But your suggestion above, which might have considerable merit 
if we had infinite time, seems to me to be fraught with 
requirements for new procedures and loose ends that should be 
tied before, rather than during or after, problems or ambiguous 
situations.  For example, the Nomcom has never chosen a WG 
chair.  Would the procedures for ADs suffice, or would some 
tuning be needed?  The Nomcom also has no procedures for 
"confirming" a choice made by some other process.  How much time 
would the Nomcom spend working through those issues, and does 
the framework of 2727 or its I-D successor provide it sufficient 
scope/ authority/ guidance to do so?  Assuming that the WG Chair 
is selected (or confirmed) by the Nomcom, does he or she still 
serve at the pleasure of the AD, or does the AD have to initiate 
a formal recall action to make a change?  If such a WG Chair 
resigns for any reason, does the nomcom have to be reconvened to 
deal with an interim vacancy, and what happens to the WG in the 
interim?

Pragmatically, just too many loose ends, I think.

If the workload is acceptable and the community is willing to 
trust the current IESG and IETF Chair to do this, that is a 
reasonable solution.   If either of those conditions is not met, 
then a new area may be a reasonable solution.  There may be 
others out there and, as I said in the note that started this 
thread, my main interest was to stimulate thinking about those 
possibilities.  But I think that new ideas that require new 
procedures are too likely to take us on some rathole tour that 
would unreasonably delay the real work.

Just my opinion, of course.

    john