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

[hardie at qualcomm.com]

John,
	Some responses inline.

At 2:58 PM -0400 5/19/03, John C Klensin wrote:
>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".)

The above was written by Pekka, not me; I was quoting him in my
note.  Sorry if that was not clear.


>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.

I have seen folks indicating that the IESG role is sufficiently 
demanding that it
requires essentially full time work, and that the requirement reduces the pool
of folks who can serve in deleterious ways.    In this case, I 
believe we could find
someone to take on the role, but I believe that constraining the choices to the
group of folks who can give that amount of time  is a big 
restriction.  As noted
below, I think the attention the matter is receiving from the community as a
whole makes who nominally oversees the group less a matter of concern than
it might otherwise be.  I would personally focus the issue on how to get and
keep good chairs in these roles rather than focus on the appeals process or
reporting chain.


>>>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.

I agree that a realistic view of what fits the IETF community's goals 
and process is
critical and that the ISOC management plan has some disadvantages in 
that regard
(it trusts the ISOC to make the effort to discover whether an outcome fits the
goals and process, which reduplicates effort done elsewhere at best and results
in a bad fit at worst).

>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.

Less-than-full membership seems to have a whole raft of other potential
problems which we cannot predict, so I'm not sure why this doesn't
fall under the same objections you cite below.

>>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.

Pragmatism would then seem to argue against having a new AD for this 
area having less
than complete responsibilities and rights, which in turn means we are 
back to the
analysis above of the advantages and disadvantages.  Pragmatism would also seem
to suggest against creating a new AD slot for it, on the theory that 
the IETF has
never before had an AD with a specifically non-technical remit, and 
that installing
one in the current system might be a bad idea.  An untidy memory reminds me of
the arguments as to why there is no Lord High Steward as a permanent 
office in modern
Britain, the right to hold coronations and try peers being both a temptation
and a liability for the individual holding it.  Not an issue for us, 
of course, having
rejected kings and princes, but you see the point.


>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?

I would argue that we can say: "We will choose N folks from among a 
volunteer pool
by verifiably random means to confirm that those chairing Working 
group A and Working Group B
are individuals appropriate to the task according to the views of the 
community.  If they
do not so confirm any individual proposed to the task, the relevant 
Area Director may
propose one or more replacements if the individual was to serve as a 
single chair and zero
or more replacements if the individual was to serve jointly."   The 
issue may be fraught
with potential issues or loose ends, but getting through it should 
neither take an
infinite time nor be impossible.  It may, of course, not be worth it. 
If having the method
used by Harald to solicit community input on a slate of chairs serves 
the same purpose
and seems more open, then let's close the issue and be done.  I put 
it forward as a
mechanism that might serve should the community's trust of the AD be 
an issue; if
it is not, so much the better.


>   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

As John says,
	just my opinion, of course,
				regards,
					Ted Hardie