Hi, SM,
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020, 17:52 S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Alissa,
At 06:22 AM 14-07-2020, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>Suresh Krishnan, Russ Housley, and myself. See
><https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manycouches/Qls9UHKkG4kE9KKK4WQ-KBc0oLg/>.
>
> >
> > 2. Who approved the draft charter?
>
>The IESG.
I find it awkward to broach the following subject as you are an Area
Director. You may have noticed that I have zero support.
I'm only replying to these two sentences.
Area Directors are not nearly as exalted as this sounds. Like the rest of Nomcom-reviewed position holders, Area Directors *serve the community*. If we did an accurate org chart, the IESG (made up of ADs) would be toward the BOTTOM of the "IETF hierarchy", and individual participants like you would be at the top.
Fred Baker (1996-2001) said repeatedly, "I know I'm the IETF Chair, because everyone sits on me". Five IETF Chairs later, that's still the way it should be.
If we are doing the IETF correctly, the only thing that matters in a discussion is the quality of a person's input. That's been clear to me since the late 1990s, and if that is no longer true, the community needs to have a broader conversation.
This is why ADs don't write all the documents :-)
I understand that this seems unnatural to many people - I am working for a company from a culture where age and white hair are given deference, and I have to remind younger colleagues that they are supposed to tell me when I'm wrong, confused, or simply don't understand. Our success at that company depends on hearing the best inputs from each person, and the IETF is no different.
My current intern was delighted to discover that HE could give ME work assignments. The IETF is like that.
As for "zero support", I wouldn't worry about that, at all. You're still engaged in a conversation, and you can't know what other people are thinking. You might eventually be "in the rough", or you might change our minds for the better. But we're listening.
Please help us to "get it right", when you see something you need to ask about.
Best,
Spencer
A person cannot be both judge and jury. Within an IETF context, a
person cannot be both the author and reviewer of a document; an Area
Director cannot sponsor his/her own draft. The reason is that it
would create a conflict of interest. In my opinion, writing the
draft charter and approving it creates a potential conflict of interest.
>There didn't seem to be any outstanding requests for changes to the
>charter text that would prevent its approval.
The definition of a charter is that it is a contract between a
working group and the IETF to perform a set of tasks. The milestones
are part of the charter text.
> > 4. Are the milestones listed at
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manycouches/UB3zrC22s1B89PEwAOM-Y488TRs/
> > compliant with RFC 2418?
>
>Yes.
I read RFC 2418 again. It states that the basis for forming a
working group is when the prospective Chair(s) and Area Director are
satisfied with the charter form and content. The RFC also states
that milestones shall consist of deliverables that can be qualified
as showing specific achievement. A deliverable is a result. In this
case, it would be the result(s) produced by the working group, e.g.
send draft to IESG by December 2020. In my opinion, the milestones
and the draft charter are not compliant with RFC 2418.
It does not make sense to go ahead with the working group approval
while the draft charter for that working group is under (formal)
dispute. It is as if the decision is/will be valid even though there
is a dispute about that decision.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
