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

Margaret Wasserman mrw at windriver.com
Tue May 20 10:46:01 CEST 2003


Hi John,

I've been thinking more about your proposal, and I'm having
some serious reservations about it.

The main advantage seems to be that it eliminates a minor
issue in the appeals process when "responsible AD" == IETF
chair.  In particular, we end-up skipping a step because
it wouldn't make any sense to go to Harald twice, so we
would need to go straight from the responsible AD to the
IESG.  Not a biggie...

Another possible advantage is that it would reduce overloading
on the IETF chair.  However, I haven't seen any mail from
Harald that indicates that:

	- He is so overloaded that running the process
		groups would represent a problem for him, or
	- That his load would be significantly lessened by
		having a new AD run a new "Process Area".

Another advantage is that this _might_ appease the people who
do not want the current establishment to run the process
of improving the IETF -- this would probably depend on who
is chosen as the Process AD (see below).

In the meantime, this proposal would exacerbate a known
issue -- that the IESG is already too large (with 13 voting
members and 17 or 18 people in attendance) to be an effective
decision making body.

And thinking a couple of steps ahead to who might be chosen...

There would seem to be two primary options for who would
be chosen to run the Process Area:

	- A past IESG member with experience in
		IETF process development.
	- Someone completely new to the IESG.

The first choice probably wouldn't be acceptable to the people
who don't want the effort to be run by the established leaders.

And, the second option causes a further problem.  The IESG
is already dealing with the care and feeding of three new
members.  I've been told that training new members is very
time-consuming for the experienced IESG members, and that
it can take six months or more for a new AD to come fully on
line.

Do we really want an entire area run by a new, inexperienced
IESG member?  And, does it really _decrease_ the load on the
IESG, and Harald in particular, to add a new member to run
this area?

I'd like to try to get to the core issue that is motivating
this (and other) alternative proposal(s) -- some people (I'm
not sure how many) don't trust the existing IESG, and Harald
in particular, to run this process.

I think that we need to determine where the consensus of
the community lies on this issue.  I believe that the
vast majority of us _do_ trust our current leadership.

I'm probably already on the record somewhere as saying that
I trust the existing IESG, and Harald, to run this process.
But, let me say something stronger...

IMO, Harald is the best person in the IETF to run the
improvement process.  _Anyone_ that we pick to run the
"Process Area" would, at best, be second choice.  I
supported Harald's candidacy with the nomcom specifically
_because_ I wanted him to run the process of fixing the
IETF.

I also believe that the Nomcom chose Harald _knowing_
that he was planning to do this.

If there was community consensus that someone else
should be running this process, it should have been
reflected in the Nomcom selection.

Margaret





More information about the Problem-statement mailing list