John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > --On Thursday, 23 December, 2004 13:31 -0800 Carl Malamud > <carl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> [John Klensin wrote:] >> >>> (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... John Klensin, I think, is in a position to know whether this is so. I haven't seen evidence that he's wrong... >> 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, we've had at least partial success on previous tries... But that's really not the point. We should ask, will _this_ BCP tend to make that situation better or worse? > 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. Indeed. The lack of agreement what _is_ the critical path has made this process difficult. > And I have observed that all of them, after having been ignored, > have simply dropped out of the discussion. This is not the way consensus is supposed to work: that things get dragged out until only like-minded people are still around. Consensus is supposed to consider issues raised by even very small minorities, and try to satisfy all reasonable persons that their concerns are addressed. >>> ... 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. This example is sufficiently unlikely that one is tempted to dismiss it, and miss the baby being thrown out with the bathwater. I'm not so much worried about IESG actually _appealing_ the decision on where to get bagels as I am about language which seems to encourage anyone who doesn't like the bagels to _ask_ the IESG to appeal it. Inevitable, somebody will claim to have heard that <some-very-important-person> didn't like the bagels, at which point it will be hard for any Chair to avoid wasting time talking about bagels. :^( The whole idea here, I thought, was to set up a support structure which would just work -- so that it could be "invisible" to the IESG and never need to be discussed by that group. (The problem, I thought, was that shortcomings of the current Secretariat were entirely too visible; and the IESG was spinning its wheels discussing them.) >>> 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. Let's review what John Klensin asked for: " " * the IETF has got to keep its hands off the day-to-day " decisions, even when they seem wrong " " * the IESG and IAB need to be prohibited structurally " from micromanaging, or managing at all, beyond the " degree that the IAOC wants to permit. They supply " input, they make requests, but decisions rest on the " IAOC side of the wall and stay there, with the only " _real_ recourse being to fire the IAOC This doesn't sound like a "corner case" to me. >>> 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. :) I respect Carl's belief... but I respect John Klensin's worry more. > 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. They shouldn't have to! If what we design doesn't make their job easier, and reduce the non-Internet things they need to worry about, this whole process will be a terrible mistake. I have a great deal of respect for Harald. He's done a very good job of managing a very difficult process. The process is an exhausting one -- we're trying to replace a totally unique process which _used_to_ work well for us with a slightly less unique process which none of us have experience with. Beliefs run strong. Legitimate concerns arise at every turn. Patience is needed here. I strongly recommend we wait for the next draft, so we can be sure we're on the same page. Harald's probably doing better than we may think he is. We _really_don't_ need arguments about whether concerns are "legitimate" or "corner-cases" today. -- John Leslie <john@xxxxxxx> _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf