Pete (mostly, but others too), I've already made comments in one or two other messages that overlap with the below, and will try to not repeat myself. I don't succeed, apologies in advance. --On Saturday, March 23, 2024 09:29 -0700 Pete Resnick <resnick=40episteme.net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 23 Mar 2024, at 8:48, Keith Moore wrote: > >> On 3/23/24 04:46, S Moonesamy wrote: >> >>> At 09:22 PM 22-03-2024, John C Klensin wrote: >>>> I think where we disagree is that I'm at least a little more >>>> concerned about working groups that become too homogeneous >>>> and resistant to "outsider" views and input. [...] >>>> [...] So I see "AD must approve" as a possible >>>> small way to alert an AD that someone out of the ordinary >>>> _might_ be going on. I'd be almost as happy with "WG Chair >>>> can decide, but AD must be notified in a timely way and has >>>> the right to override the decision". >>> >>> 1. A WG Chair decides to allow an I-D to be added a day >>> before a meeting. >>> >>> 2. There isn't any complaint about the decision. >> >> A decision made a day before a meeting doesn't allow enough >> time to see whether there would be complaints. > > Completely agree with Keith that making these decisions at the > last minute is not acceptable. > > But where I disagree with John is with the notion that these > artificial rules and procedures address the issue in any > meaningful way. Insofar as there are groups that are "too > homogenous and resistant to 'outsider' views and input" (and I > don't doubt there are some), that's a cultural problem. It's > caused by chairs who are not sufficiently sensitive to the > issue (or the ADs appointing them), or the charter not being > clear about bringing in the right amount of well-rounded > input, or chairs who are not pushing back on their WGs, or an > IESG or IAB not paying attention and giving appropriate > guidance, or other similar possible causes. A relatively > arbitrary rule or procedure that throws up a road block for a > train that's already drifting off the rails doesn't do much. > At best, it's simply an annoyance, a barrier that folks will > simply route around or plow through; at worst, it makes things > worse by removing responsibility from chairs to make > thoughtful decisions. Hmm. I don't think I'm looking for either significantly more complexity or more (or even continuing) "artificial rules and procedures". While I mostly agree with your comment below (more there), I am trying to address what I see is today's reality. That reality, at least from my perspective, includes: * ADs, or at least many of them, are overextended and at least some don't monitor their WGs, read their mailing lists, etc., regularly. Whether that is good or not is part of the broader, cultural, problem to which you refer. * That said, I don't believe I have run into a single AD in the last many years who does not care. If alerted to an issue, they will try to deal with it even if the constraints of time just turn that into a brief discussion with WG chairs or maybe other ADs. On the other hand, many of them, like many of the rest of us, don't particularly like surprises -- if there is going to be a problem, or even a claim of a problem, they would prefer to see it coming. * So I am suggesting that we establish (or, from my perspective, reaffirm) the principle that having documents, meeting agendas and materials, schedules for interims, etc., available (and in some way announced) to the community well ahead of a meeting is the Right Thing to Do. For the reason Michael Richardson gave recently, that principle even applies to WGs that do not meet at a given IETF meeting. But I see it as a principle, not a rule. On the other hand, if we don't believe in that principle, I not only don't see any reason for a document to be posted more than a few minutes before the discussion of it begins, I don't see any reason for a WG agenda to be posted before the WG meeting starts: after all, it can be displayed on a slide and the WG given a minute or two to propose changes. That does leave out someone considering whether to attend the meeting, especially in the case where they are trying to choose which of two meetings in the same slot to attend but, if they were participating actively in both WGs, they should be able to figure it out. See my recent note to Keith and SM about the even broader principles and Keith's explanation about who is affected. * I think the combination of those three things suggests that, in many cases, it is helpful to at least some of those overworked ADs if they are notified -- even if there should be an expectation that they be notified -- when the boundaries of that principle are pushed. If an AD wants to tell a particular WG chair "I trust you, don't bother me with such notifications", or even to say that to all of their WGs, I think I'm ok with that although it would not make me happy. I'd hope information about such decisions (and, ideally the discussions) would be available to the community and to the next relevant Nomcom in particular, but that is getting close to a detail. ** Note that nothing above comes close to a rule, artificial or not, and certainly not a quick patch or fix. The last comment is just a reflection of another principle, which is that ADs should have at least some general ideas of what their WGs are doing. If we are dropping that one, then your comments about culture should extend to AD job descriptions. So... > If the culture of the organization is shifting away from > principles that many of us think are core and foundational, > that stinks. Shifting back to those principles is hard and > takes serious conversations and work. Quick "fixes" (that I > don't think do much fixing) aren't the way. Again, we agree on that too, perhaps as a meta-principle. In that context, my comments above might be considered a start on the serious conversations and shifting back that you suggest. Perhaps that is hopeless without the broad community recognition of a serious problem (and/or bad stink) that was prerequisite to post-Kobe meltdown and reforms of circa 30 years ago. Without taking a position on them, I've been part of a few discussions in recent months in which it has been suggested that several recent IESG and other "leadership" positions imply that they (as a group) are even more isolated from, and insensitive to, the day-to-day work of the community than the IAB was then but that they are much better at protecting themselves from successful and significant reforms. If that were to be true, than the conversations and work you are looking for are unlikely if not impossible. So, constructive suggestion time as I try to back of from the discussion in this thread because I think I'm getting past the point of having anything useful to say (there is one more, 3/4 complete, note that I might decide to post so please no attacks for not stopping here). Pete, since you posted the first (at least IMO) statement of why we should be focusing on principles rather than arbitrary rules or procedures, would you be willing to either (i) Suggest a way to organize and start that discussion that could be used to start a discussion with the IESG or (ii) Make a list of those core and foundational principles that seem to be in doubt or having evolved to take on a bad odor, again as a starting point for a discussion with the IESG? If you choose the latter and would like to put together an informal discussion or design team to get things started, I'd be happy to be asked to participate but not too unhappy if not. If the answer is "yes", I'd like to suggest a not-arbitrary deadline. My recollection is that the IESG usually holds a retreat a few months after being seated. I have not idea whether that is in this year's plan or, if so, where it fits on the schedule, but it seems to me that it would be good to have one or both of the above available to them before the retreat. That is important because, if the conclude at the retreat is that this is not worth doing, that there there is no time to do it, or that they don't have time to even discuss it, then there is no point making a further investment and those of us who, in your words, think that things stink should either get used to the odor and stop whining about it or figure out better ways to spend our time, convincing employers and sponsors of that if needed. If your answer is "no" and no one with equal credibility steps forward, or if it looks like [re-]establishing those core and foundational principles is likely to take a really long time (especially if some practices and/rules must then be derived from them) then I suggest that some pragmatism about practices and guidelines may be appropriate. That pragmatism would, I hope, match to two extremely general principles. One is the notion of openness and transparently about what the IETF does and its decisions and decision-making processes. The other is that every decision or action taken by or in the name of the IETF should rest on some process or other foundation that is ultimately accountable to the community. "Ultimately accountable" is deliberately vague but is probably impossible without openness and transparency... and it may be just my long-winded but ultimately equivalent version of Dave Clark's observation about rejecting kings, presidents, etc., observations that were very much part of the reforms of 30 years ago that instantiated the core and foundational principles to which you refer in our present organizational structure and practices (or at least its predecessors) best, john
