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

[James Kempf]

Dave,

I think you hit this right on.

The issue has to do with the community's perception's in and since
Yokohama and the lack of progress since Yokohama (I read the 10 months
below as Yokohama not Kobe).

John K.'s proposal is a good compromise between the need for
independence and the desire for something that fits the IETF
community's process. Of course, we need an individual who can make
this work,  and getting the right person is always important,  but I
think we need to really decide on something that looks like it will
work and get started on solutions.

            jak

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Crocker" <dcrocker at brandenburg.com>
To: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <harald at alvestrand.no>
Cc: <problem-statement at alvestrand.no>
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 3:13 PM
Subject: Re: Charters, "normal process" versus ISOC, etc. (was: Re


> Harald,
>
> HTA> Yes, and they are. But I follow it even more closely than the
others.
>
> >> But it has nothing to do with the work of actually providing
oversight.
>
> HTA> It has - oversight cannot be provided without following the
work, and a
> HTA> significant portion of the work of oversight is to follow (in,
ideally,
> HTA> near real time) discussions like this one.
>
>
> I started to write a "that's not my point" response to your note but
> suddenly realized that this exchange is frankly a distraction.
>
>
> This is not a company.  The employees are not the final authority in
a
> company.  So we should not automatically apply corporate management
> style to these IETF efforts.  As already noted, even with company
change,
> independent change agents are often brought in.
>
>
> We have a disgruntled community.  We have productivity problems.
>
> Some changes are underway, including finally getting better tracking
> software. All that is fine, but it has literally nothing at all to
do
> with the core problems. The core problems are deep and
long-standing.
> They have to do with transparency, accountability, responsiveness
and
> conflicting responsibilities.
>
> With Kobe we had constructive change within a few months. Now we are
10
> months after Kobe and simple, reasonable suggestions for independent
> management of the change effort are being resisted rather
vigorously.
>
> It really is time to change this.
>
> John K. has made an extremely constructive proposal as a compromise
> between concerns over enjoying the safety of existing process,
versus
> the need for independence in the change effort.
>
> Please note the word *compromise*.  It needs to be present in far
more
> of the postings.
>
>    Having any sitting member of the IESG directly in charge of this
>    effort is a good way to make sure the effort is not credible.
>
>    It does not matter who that person is; it does not matter what
the
>    community thinks of them. Having any such person in charge is an
>    inherent conflict of interest.
>
>    The community has an institutional concern and it is not
reasonable
>    for anyone from that institution to manage the change effort.
>
> John's proposal places a *new* person into that same institution,
with
> the sole mandate to pursue the necessary structural change.
>
> Placing them into the IESG creates some risk with credibility, but
at
> the benefit of ensuring use of existing process and good access to
> current management.
>
>
> HTA> my point was that we either relax the requirement on "operative
day before
> HTA> yesterday" or we (perhaps initially) load the hat on some
existing IESG
> HTA> member.
>
> To repeat: We are already 10 months after Kobe, with no direct
changes
> yet underway.
>
> The current effort is already a long way from "operative day before
> yesterday."
>
>
> d/
> --
>  Dave Crocker <mailto:dcrocker at brandenburg.com>
>  Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
>  Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>
>
>