--On Thursday, 23 December, 2004 13:31 -0800 Carl Malamud <carl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 >>... > 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? Well, that is one of the reasons why several members of the community have tried to comment, several times, that the Admin Reorg effort is addressing problems that are either irrelevant or not on the critical path. And I have observed that all of them, after having been ignored, have simply dropped out of the discussion. I suspect, but can't prove, that "in disgust" belongs at the end of that sentence. I'd also observe that I don't think you have tried to get a technical or standards track document through the system in the last year or two. >> (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. The bagels aren't just corner cases, they are a deliberately-silly example (which I think I've said). But the question of how much the IESG and IAB should be able to intervene in the operations of the IASA is not. > <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 >>... > 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 ... I actually never asked for an executive search. I asked for review of the description by someone competent in that area and for the transition team to consider whether an executive search was appropriate. My personal hypothesis, as I said on the list, was that it probably would not be useful and worth the costs. But I thought the question was important to ask, and am concerned about the symptoms of its not being asked, of the description not being reviewed by professionals, etc. As far as whether I'm overblowing the position, I don't know, because I still can't figure out from the draft just what the expectations are of how much authority that person has and what he or she is expected to do. If we are talking about an overblown administrative assistant (or executive assistant to the IETF Chair), then thinking seriously about searches is unnecessary. But I keep seeing phrases that imply managing a fairly large operation consisting of multiple subcontractors, shaping a reasonably large budget, and making a large number of decisions that could, if gotten wrong, impact the IETF's ability to function. If _those_ are the expectations, then I think we really want some executive-level talent in the job and that hiring someone junior who happens to know some of the IETF Leadership (not the only alternative, but one extreme possibility) would be a bit mistake. > As to the end of the IETF, mumble. That seems a bit much. Well, my impression -- it is just an impression, but I am still trying to get technical work done in this community and keep hearing from others in the same boat-- is that this process is sucking a lot of the energy and life out of the community. I suggest that very few of the people who are following all of the BCP and issues traffic are functionally doing anything else in the IETF. If those impressions are correct, it brings us to the question of how long we can pull energy into administrative planning and similar structural/ organizational issues before it is fatal... whether fatal to energy, fatal to the notion that work can get done here, fatal to the notion that investing (in donations, travel money, or just time) in the IETF is a worthwhile investment, or in some other way. Is that "a bit much"? Probably. But it is beginning to make me really nervous. >... >> 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. :) And I think that a large fraction of that "remarkable degree of consensus" is consensus by exhaustion of most of the community. I've even heard from several IAB and IESG members that they have been exhausted by the process and can't deal with it any more. We've recently had a document about a piece of this work published with an announcement that contained the phrase "The IETF Chair has declared that the IETF has consensus on this recommendation;...". I'm probably just being oversensitive, but, in the "no kings; rough consensus and running code" IETF I remember, that phrasing would have produced immediate calls for explanation or resignation. I observe that there apparently haven't been any (including from me). Perhaps that is a sign that everyone has tuned out as a consequence of this process. Perhaps it indicates that the IETF is already dead or at least in need of life support. Or perhaps we are evolving in a direction in which "declarations" are an appropriate community consensus-determining mechanism. regards, john _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf