Hi John - > (i) the IESG, or the IESG's leadership, is likely to micromanage > because it has tended to micromanage, or try to do so, many of > the things it has touched in the last several years -- the > secretariat, the content of various documents down to the > editorial level, the RFC Editor, and so on (some of that has > gotten better in recent months or years, but that isn't the > point). Even you have made the claim that they (for some > instance of "they") have tried to micromanage you in terms of > the contents of your various reports and recommendations. And > the discussion of why the IETF and IAB Chairs had to be on the > IAOC had, to me, a strong ring of "so we can make sure that > administrative entity does exactly what we want", which is close > to an operational definition of intended micromanagement. So > that one isn't a corner case, it is a simple extrapolation from > behavior that has been observed in the community (and commented > upon in the Problem Statement work, which makes it feel like I'm > not alone in those impressions). > Hmmm .... I don't see how worrying this particular BCP to death is going to change any of that. You're talking some pretty fundmamental doom-and-gloom stuff. If things are that broken, could any BCP fix them? > (ii) If I'm worried about bagels (I'm really not), I'm not > worried about the IAD/IASA making that decision: I expect those > people to be firmly in contact with fiscal realities and > priorities. If they are not, we will have far worse problems > than the bagel supply. But I'm concerned about even the > possibility of bagels-by-appeal, or > bagels-by-IESG/IAB-overriding IAD decisions, even while > realizing that particular example is (deliberately) unlikely. > > And, as I said, the issue I'm raising is a key management and > management-relationships principle. Whether one agrees with it > or not, characterizing it as a corner case seems to me like a > stretch. > Hmmm again ... maybe it is just the holiday spirit, or the six months of intensive community work that has gone into the document, but it just seems to me that bagels-by-appeal, or any of the other bagel-related scenarios, are corner cases. <snip for brevity> > No. But I've heard that the draft IAD job description was > floated by a couple of HR/ search experts (I believe at least > one of those reports has not been forwarded to the transition > team because there was no indication that the advice was wanted) > and that the comments involved phrases like "incompetent > description" and "no one sane would take a job defined that > way". These are not small issues: they go to the very core of > the likely ability of the IAD and IAOC to function. To > paraphrase an out-of-context quote from a different discussion, > I don't want to see Harald become the next-to-last Chair of the > IETF because of this process. Put differently, I'd like to be > sure that principles are well enough articulated, and details > left to where they can be worked out, that we get a chance to > revise the BCP without completely killing the IETF in the > process. Well, I wrote portions of that description, so I definitely resemble that remark. ;) I think you're overblowing this IAD position by asking for things like executive searches. Feel free to furnish new text to the committee ... As to the end of the IETF, mumble. That seems a bit much. > > > My personal advice: let's stop negotiating, call this BCP > > cooked, and move on to other fires. > > And my personal advice is to make sure that we get the > principles right and that we do so, as needed, based on > competent review and advice. I also recommend that we look at > past behaviors and assume that they extrapolate cleanly into > future behaviors unless reasons or conditions can be identified > that make such extrapolation inappropriate. I further recommend > that it is far more useful to look at those extrapolations and > what they mean about both principles and implementation than it > is to spend a lot of energy on scenarios that are really > unlikely, such as how things would be handled, in detail, if > IETF income from meeting fees significantly exceeded all > expenses in a given year. > > You may have noted that I've said virtually nothing, on or > off-list, about editorial matters that don't impact principles > except sometimes to suggest that excess detail be removed. That > is not an accident. It is consistent, I think, with your desire > to get this cooked and out but without pushing important issues > under the proverbial rug in the process. > > YMMD, of course, and likely does. It does. I've seen a remarkable degree of consensus, a few tweaks on a few things, but no huge disagreement that the principles are wrong. It may not be a great document, the framework may not be ideal, but I think y'all should move on and get back to some real work. :) Regards, Carl _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf