--On Tuesday, 18 January, 2005 11:21 -0500 avri@xxxxxxx wrote:
> i strongly agree with Carl on this, people serve as
> individuals.
I had promised myself I would drop this, but one more try.
I agree with Carl that individual responsibility and individual
service is a much better model. But the IAOC is set up exactly
the way the IESG is -- no votes except as a last resort, no
requirement to record votes, tremendous incentives for the group
to work together as a group (which includes covering for people
who are performing below-par), strong mechanisms to be sure that
everyone goes along with the group in order to get anything
done, and perhaps most important, no real way for people on the
"outside" to determine that someone isn't working effectively as
part of the team. We've also replicated the role of a Chair
with no real authority over the other members of the IAOC. All
of those things are probably good decisions, at least IMO.
However, there are even fewer constraints on the IAOC than on
the IESG. In particular, many types of underperformance by an
AD are visible to that AD's WGs.
A fairly large number of comments during the Problem Statement
WG period seemed to point to the fact that neither the appeals
nor the nomcom processes were effective in singling out the
individuals who were responsible for aggregate IESG bad behavior
and retiring them, precisely because the offenders could not be
properly identified. So, drop the idea of "mass execution", but
think about how any problematic individuals are going to be
identified sufficiently well that "individual responsibility"
tools work. Otherwise, if the IAOC turns out to be
insufficiently functional, the only way to fix it is, in
practice, almost certain to involve singling out some individual
as the problem, piling all of the problem on him or her, and the
having an execution of that individual. If the way in which the
recall procedures have functioned so far are indicative, we have
either never had anyone who deserved recalling or that "make
public accusations and hold an individual responsible for
something that might actually be the consequences of
circumstances or someone else's fault" is just not a model that
we are willing to use.
john
> On 18 jan 2005, at 10.53, Carl Malamud wrote:
>
>> Hi -
>>
>> Just so we're clear, I think a mass execution procedure is a
>> bad idea. Serial executions are much better: these people got
>> seated one by one, and if you don't like them, each one
>> should get their own trial and sentence.
>>
>> Changing 3777 to allow group trials seems like a task well
>> beyond the current exercise, which should be focused on how
>> to get the IAOC on board and functioning. I fully expect
>> that our founding fodders on the IAOC will do a great job and
>> that we should focus on building this particular bridge
>> instead of establishing procedures for burning it down.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Carl
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf