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

[hardie at qualcomm.com]

At 7:31 PM -0400 5/19/03, John C Klensin wrote:
>Ted Hardie writes:
>>>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,
>...snip...
>>sufficiently demanding that it requires essentially full time
>>work, and that the requirement reduces the pool of folks who
>>can serve in deleterious ways.
>
>I've heard that.  I believe it is true.   But I note that there is 
>nothing in draft-ietf-problem-issue-statement-01.txt that even 
>vaguely implies "we need to make decisions in a way that sacrifices 
>The Right Thing to Do to the total number of qualified people we can 
>get to serve on the IESG at a time".  If we think that is a problem, 
>then we had better get it into the document.  If we don't think it 
>is a problem, then we shouldn't be injecting it into this, or any 
>other, discussion.

I don't think that phrasing belongs in the document, but I would put 
"We need to be able to
get the right thing done without requiring full-time effort for every 
leadership role" into
the document, and I would put the AD position you posit firmly in the 
category "leadership
role".


>* We have seen, on this list and in plenaries, a good deal of 
>concern and suspicion expressed about the IESG and its ultimate 
>commitment to change and openness.  I'm not nearly as concerned 
>about that issue as those who have repeated raised it and proposed 
>radical alternate procedures as a consequence.  But it appears to me 
>that having a process that is as much above suspicion as is 
>practical (remembering that I consider anything that involves new 
>procedures as impractical) is, at least, a good idea.

And it is here that we do disagree.  We have a different view of the 
balance between:

(new procedures which may alleviate suspicion and may contain bugs)

and

(reuse of old procedures which may not alleviate suspicion and may 
contain mismatches
between original aims and current use).

Fair enough; you may be right.  I suspect a lot of the answer as to 
where to put
the emphasis depends on how much suspicion there is.  The rest of it may be
my over-optimism on how easy it is to create new procedures whose bugs are
less than fatal.


>[... text where we agree deleted ...]
>
>>>And, of course, the IESG and the community could agree --and
>>>make  sure the nomcom knows it-- that this particular AD was
>...snip...
>>potential problems which we cannot predict, so I'm not sure
>>why this doesn't fall under the same objections you cite below.
>
>Hmm.  I didn't say anything that I would construe as "less than full 
>membership".

As I noted in my reply to Dave, it is obvious now that I misread your meaning
on "expectation that they would vote no objection" to mean that they would
be told, in essence, "these are not your concern".  I am sorry for 
misconstruing
your remarks.  I believe my other concerns on timing and viewpoint still
apply.

>
>>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 ...
>>...snip...
>>liability for the individual holding it.  Not an issue for us,
>>of course, having rejected kings and princes, but you see the
>>point.
>
>I would if there were any analogy.  You will recall that I suggested 
>this only in the context of a temporary area, with a limited 
>duration and an explicit sunset/review date.  I think we all 
>recognize the risks of a "process AD" who was inclined to create all 
>sorts of process WGs and BOFs to keep the area active and busy.  I 
>would hope that the Nomcom would avoid appointing anyone with those 
>inclinations.  And, if they developed after someone was seated, we 
>would have not only the usual recall tools, but a one-year term and 
>a one-year expiration for the area as protection.  All within normal 
>procedures.

I am sorry that  you do not see the merit of the analogy.  I'm afraid 
I continue
to see the risks of both ostracism and abuse as real.  Frankly, the advantage
of having someone like the IETF chair do the job is the other IESG members
know that they too will have to live with the result; that seems likely to
limit the risk that they will be treated like a pariah.

On the risk of abuse, given the arguments which Margaret and others have given
on the realism of a one-year term, I think the sunset clause is 
likely to get stretched.
As for the NomCom's recall powers--have they been exercised?  I don't think
they have since 2727, but I have already proved myself no historian once
today.  Even if they have been, using them to recall someone tasked with
shepherding a reform process seems both highly charged and pretty unlikely.

So we are back to trusting the NomCom to pick the right person.  I recognize
that picking ADs has been done by the NomCom and picking chairs has not,
but I don't see the same issues others do.  In one case, they pick the right
people to pick the right chairs, and in the proposal I made they confirm
that the person picking picked right.  Certainly different; not chalk 
and cheese.

Since it bears repeating, just my opinion,

				regards,
					Ted HArdie