--On Sunday, 23 January, 2005 14:20 -0500 Michael StJohns
<mstjohns@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Responding in the areas where you are unclear about what I'm
suggesting (or see it differently)....
>> Everything, although I'd expect some of the things you list to
>> get very brief consideration. And, to give an example I'm
>> sure won't arise in practice, if the IAB or IESG were to
>> demand that the IAOC review explain the cost of paper at
>> frequent intervals, I'd expect the IAOC members to make that,
>> and its impact on getting work done, known to the community,
>> the nomcom, etc.
>
> I'm confused - I thought you were in the hands-off camp.
I consider myself to be in that camp, but believe that the best
way to enforce parts of it is to allow some flexibility in the
system and then hold the various actors accountable for how they
handle that flexibility. "You can never, never, do this" rules
make me too anxious, especially with a body we've never seen in
action.
> OK -
> let's consider one very specific case - meeting site
> selection. Please describe all the actions possible around
> this decision listing the IAOC, ISOC, IAD, IASA, IAB, IESG and
> IETF in general. Please explain what should happen if we
> announce we're going to Beijing and 10 IETF participants
> complain for various reasons and cite the fact the meeting
> cost would be less in Minneapolis. Does the IAOC *really*
> need to respond to this formally? By the time things are
> announced they are contractual and are generally not subject
> to revision without great expense.
To respond to the specific example: No. The IAOC should tell
the ten people to go away. Or, depending on the objections, it
should remember them for consideration in future meeting site
selections. And, if it is ten people who have raised this type
of objection in the past, or if the objection lacks substance,
I'd expect the IAOC to ignore it or give it very short shrift.
Now, suppose the ten people then go to to the IESG and say "we
don't think we should go to Beijing and the IAOC didn't change
the meeting or give us an explanation we found satisfactory as
to why we should". I'd expect the IESG to say "too late, so
sorry, probably we should review criteria for meetings within
the IETF and make some suggestions for future action to the
IAOC". Or, depending on the objection, I'd expect the IESG to
say "you are wasting everyone's time, go pound sand". If the
IESG went to the IAOC and said "ok, we think Beijing is maybe
not such a good idea, please review your decision and change
it", I'd expect the IAOC to take the time to explain to the IESG
why the decision was made, that they presumably had an
opportunity for input when the IAOC was considering the decision
(after all, the IETF Chair is an IAOC member), and reminding
them about commercial realities. And, if the IESG made that
sort of request very often, I'd expect the IAOC members to try
to identify the offenders and to have a discussion with the
Nomcom at an appropriate time.
> Another case. Selection of the IASO. The IAOC/IAD writes and
> issues an RFP. They receive bids, evaluate them and with the
> ISOC issue a contract for services. Does the public in
> general get to challenge the signing of the contract with org
> A? Can the IAB/IESG force the IAOC to reconsider the award if
> they don't like the result? Is that even legal?
First of all, if I correctly read the intent of the RFP, the
IAOC/IAD write that RFP and make it available for comment from
the community before bids are evaluated and contracts are
awarded (and probably before it is issued). If they get
reasonable input and ignore it, we have a problem, but a rather
different one from the issue you raise above. So let's assume
that a contract is awarded within the parameters of an RFP that
had general sign-off in the community. The IESG/IAB can force
the IAOC to review the decision for any improprieties,
especially if they think they have information the IAOC didn't.
They can force the IAOC to report to them on that review. But
they cannot force reconsideration of the decision/award itself.
Now, I would suggest that the IESG or IAB asking for that sort
of review in the absence of allegations of fraud or other
activities sufficient to invalidate the contract would be a
waste of everyone's time. But the community has decided that
wasting time is dealt with by individual recalls or nomcom
action, not by trying to write rigid rules.
> Last case. IAOC/IAD take to heart the section that only the
> IAB/IESG can compel response. The IAOC/IAD keep getting 10's
> of complaints about small things which they decline to spend
> anytime on. The 10's of complaints come from the same 10-20
> people. The IETF body as a whole says - "why are you ignoring
> our rightful complaints?". What happens then? Does the
> IAB/IESG start compelling responses? Why not just have the
> complaints go to the IAB/IESG in the first place and have them
> filter them to the IAOC/IAD?
There are two cases. In the first, the 10-20 people a
generating trivial or spurious complaints. The IAOC comments,
probably no more than once or twice, on the inappropriateness of
those complaints to the IASA process and model, then ignores the
complaints. If the IAB/IESG then compels a response, I'd expect
the response to be much the same. And, of course, if the
IAB/IESG asks for such a response multiple times, I'd expect
them to get the same answer. The implied deadlock would then
need to be worked out in the nomcom or by recall.
Why not to the IAB/IESG first? Because I think this whole
business will succeed to the extent that it unloads work from
the IAB and IESG, rather than increasing their workload. And
because I think there will be cases in which a member of the
community will want to send a semi-confidential note to the IAD
or IAOC that says "I have some information you don't, and I
think you should review that decision with that information
available to you" without involving the IAB or IESG. Moreover,
I'm sympathetic to the desire of many members of the community
to be able to communicate with/ complain to the IAOC: I just
thing the burden should be on them, and not on the procedures,
to demonstrate that their complaints are worth paying any
attention to.
>> > Who gets to kick this process into starting (e.g. who gets
>> > to file a complaint)?
>>
>> Anyone, but only the IAB or IESG can demand a response.
>
> I'm pretty sure that distinction won't work very well. See
> above.
Yes, see above for the reasons for it. Note that the
"everything goes to the IAB or IESG first" is just a degenerate
case so, if the distinction doesn't work, the BCP-level
procedure doesn't need changing.
>> Is that what I'd like in a perfect world? Nope. Do I think
>> it will need tuning over time, probably in the direction of
>> more IASA autonomy? Yes, but maybe not in ways that change
>> the BCP. But I think that, given the divisions in the
>> community over this issue, it is probably about the best
>> that any of us will be able to get.
>
> John - all I'm looking for are specific worked examples. E.g.
> take various cases and work through how they should be
> handled. Document each step. See if there are common
> processes for each case. Determine the cost/benefit analysis
> from those processes (e.g. does doing X actually improve the
> behavior of the IAOC?) Derive the BCP from those processes.
> Right now the BCP describes a process that hasn't even been
> validated on paper or on a white board. We have neither rough
> consensus nor running code.
I have been trying to make variations of that point in more
instances than this case, so we agree. But the community
doesn't seem to want to do that case analysis, or believes that
the IESG and IAB have done it for them and are taking
responsibility for it, and I don't see any way to make that
particular horse sip the water. I do hope that, if there are
members of the community are taking the "trust the IESG and/or
IAB" approach to this (based on assurance they presumably think
they have gotten), that the IESG and IAB have actually done the
analysis and that, if they have not done it and done it
adequately, those community members will find the recall
procedures and use them.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf