Re: #720 and #725 - Appeals and IAD autonomy

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



>>>>> "John" == John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> writes:

    John> --On Thursday, 23 December, 2004 09:42 -0800 Carl Malamud
    John> <carl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

    >> Hi John -
    >> 
    >> Your note seems like an outlier.  In particular, it takes a
    >> really *strong* stance on protecting people from each other
    >> because people *will* act badly.  For example, the way I read
    >> your note, the IESG will micromanage and the IASA/IAD will
    >> order bagels flown in daily from New York.  Appeals will be a
    >> daily happening and people will hire lawyers instead of working
    >> it out.

    John> No, my concern is that

    John> (i) the IESG, or the IESG's leadership, is likely to
    John> micromanage because it has tended to micromanage, or try to
    John> do so, many of the things it has touched in the last several
    John> years -- the secretariat, the content of various documents
    John> down to the editorial level, the RFC Editor, and so on (some
    John> of that has gotten better in recent months or years, but
    John> that isn't the point).  Even you have made the claim that
    John> they (for some instance of "they") have tried to micromanage
    John> you in terms of the contents of your various reports and
    John> recommendations.  And the discussion of why the IETF and IAB
    John> Chairs had to be on the IAOC had, to me, a strong ring of
    John> "so we can make sure that administrative entity does exactly
    John> what we want", which is close to an operational definition
    John> of intended micromanagement.  So that one isn't a corner
    John> case, it is a simple extrapolation from behavior that has
    John> been observed in the community (and commented upon in the
    John> Problem Statement work, which makes it feel like I'm not
    John> alone in those impressions).

Micro-management is not the same as management.  I actually think the
IESG and IAB have done a good job of stepping in, applying management
and solving some real problems over the years.  I realize that I'm now
part of the IESG and thus part of the organization that you believe is
doing too much micro-management.  However I haven't been involved in
many of the past decisions and so I think that this response is at
least mostly untainted by my involvement in the IESG.p


So, I do see the IESG and IAB continuing to try and set priorities for
the parts of the secretariat that influence the standards process.
Clearly these priorities will need to be evaluated in the entire
budget context by the IASA just as they are now evaluated by Fortec.


I'm not sure what specific issues you believe are micro-management.
However I contend that this BCP is not the right forum for these
concerns to be addressed.  If you have concerns about how the IAB and
IESG are conducting themselves, there are several approaches you could
take.  First, you can provide input to the IESG and IAB about how they
have handled specific issues and how they are handling issues before
them.  In cases where you believe it is necessary to do so, you can
even appeal decisions.  You can also provide feedback to the nomcom if
you believe that a different set of qualifications or outlook is
required for IESG and IAB members.



--Sam, speaking only for myself

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]