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

[Dave Crocker]

Margaret,


>>I believe what might seem like excessive online discussion about the
>>IESG, right now, is coming from the fact that efforts to get independent
>>management of the change process are being met with considerable
>>resistance... notably from the IESG.

MW> I don't believe that this fairly characterizes the discussion.
MW> I think that there is a big difference between raising
MW> concerns with a proposal and/or suggesting alternatives and
MW> resisting efforts to get independent management of the change
MW> process.


You might want to review the postings from IESG members. The direction
of the concerns has been quite consistent.


You may also want to re-read my posting.

Yes, non-IESG people have also raised questions about John's proposal,
and about the ISOC alternative.

I said "notably".  I did not say "xclusively".


MW> There seems to be some assumption that, if we open a new
MW> Process AD position, the nomcom will pick someone who has never
MW> served on the IAB or IESG (and is therefore "untainted").


There are all sorts of "assumptions" being made.

Oddly the assumptions all seem to presume that John's proposal is not
viable.



MW> I pointed out that this would also have the downside
MW> of having the process run by someone who is new to the
MW> IESG processes.  I've been told that it takes 6+ months
MW> to come up-to-speed in the IESG, and I believe that.

And were this a normal AD slot, that might be important.  It isn't, so
it isn't.

Then, of course, there is the minor likelihood that whoever is selected
actually would be someone with quite a bit of IETF experience.

Gosh. What a thought.


MW> So, we have a situation where there may be a trade-off
MW> between the speed/efficiency of this process and the desire
MW> to have it run by a "neutral" party.

Please forgive me for noting that raising an arbitrary concern will
almost always create the appearance of a trade-off.

You see, the nice thing about such carefully selected concerns is that
they ignore other factors that are likely to be brought into the
selection process.


MW> We could suggest that the IESG add another AD to the General
MW> area and keep the work there.

The need is not for managing the "general area".

The need is for managing a change process that is credible to the
community.

When you pursue alternative proposals, it would help for this concern
about credibility and independence to be given as much credence as
whether the bureaucratic niceties are comfortable to the IESG.



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>