>>>>> "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