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

[hardie at qualcomm.com]

At 7:40 PM -0700 5/20/03, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
>You might want to review the postings from IESG members. The direction
>of the concerns has been quite consistent.

You also might want to drop the assumption that anyone speaking
in this forum is doing so as a representative of a corporate body,
internal or external to the IETF.  Current and former members of
various bodies have contributed their experience and concerns, but
as far as I can tell they have done so as individuals.  If at anytime
I personally have been remiss in putting "just my opinion" on
a note, forgive me; I may have assumed it and I invite you to do
the same.

Speaking personally, I have contributed to this working
group draft documents, alternatives, and comments on others' text,
and I have done so  both before and after I took on the role of co-AD
for Applications.  Do not assume my maunderings represent the
consensus opinion of any other body.  They are my own statements,
not a posting from "an IESG member".  Please feel free to disagree,
point out errors, and even think me an idiot, but do me the courtesy
common to this body of thinking me an individual idiot, rather
than a stooge.

On another point, I was not asked during the NomCom process
whether I was planning to shut up for the following two years;
I was asked  a great deal both about my desires for change and
my willingness to participate actively in it.  I expressed then
a desire for change that borders on the radical, and I still hold
that view.  Attempting to push my view out because I
am also trying to work with Chairs to get documents done doesn't
seem very productive; in fact, it seems rude.

On the larger point, let me make clear again my own opinion:
adding a process-specific AD to the current IESG as way to
achieve some form of neutrality in oversight seems to me
to me the wrong approach.  It creates an oversight position
that replicates the current system, when we are engaged in
an effort to re-imagine the system; it may be interpreted as
a statement by this body that the community should not
trust the IETF chair, when this body should be listening to
the community on that point instead; and it forces us to
find someone focused on this issue who can dedicate nearly
full time to it when such a person might have other roles
to play (someone trusted to be this AD is obviously also a
good candidate to be the chair of one of the groups, for example).

As I said above, just my opinion,
				regards,
					Ted Hardie





>
>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>