>>>>> "Leslie" == Leslie Daigle <leslie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Leslie> Sam,
Leslie> Let me first take another stab at recap'ing the discussion
Leslie> that lead to my proposal for 3.5 and 3.6, and clarifying
Leslie> what I intend as a distinction between them.
Leslie> As I understood them, John Klensin, Mike St.Johns, and
Leslie> others were concerned about creating an IASA that could
Leslie> not or operate without constant checking by the IETF
Leslie> community (having their feet shot at, in the worst case).
Leslie> That makes sense to me -- the IASA, as a separate
Leslie> activity, should have clear boundaries of responsibility.
Leslie> The IETF community as a whole should not become the
Leslie> invisible hands driving the IASA actions. This is the
Leslie> intent of section 3.5.
Thanks so much for this note. It was useful in helping me figure out
where we disagreed.
Leslie> So, I don't (personally) expect a future where individual
Leslie> IETF participants can derail a proposed meeting site
Leslie> because they don't agree with it. However, individual
Leslie> IETF members should be able to point out that a proposed
Leslie> meeting site selection is not in line with state
Leslie> operational guidelines for picking meeting sites (which
Leslie> might include proposing them publicly for 2 weeks before
Leslie> finalizing, for eg).
I think we disagree on this point. I think it is appropriate for an
individual, the IESG or IAB to ask for such a review, arguing that the
decision was not in the best interests of the IETF for some reason. I
think that such requests for review should meet a much higher standard
than claims procedures or guidelines are violated in order to be
considered seriously.
As such, I disagree with your proposed text.
Leslie> [Margaret wrote:]
>> (1) I agree with you that we do not want a review process
>> (whether invoked by an individual or by the IAB and IESG) that
>> can overturn a contract award or hiring decision after that
>> decision is made. The current proposed text (I think that the
>> latest was from Leslie) makes the community impotent, without
>> properly restricting the review requests from the IAB/IESG,
>> IMO.
Leslie> Well, I disagree that it makes the community impotent.
Leslie> See my note to Avri today. My text does attempt to make
Leslie> clear what level individual IETF members should get
Leslie> involved at.
Leslie> So, the intent of my proposed text is to not only prevent
Leslie> undoing of signed contracts, but also say that the IETF in
Leslie> general should not be focused on every action that leads
Leslie> to such contracts. I believe this is a point where
Leslie> Margaret and I disagree.
I agree with Margaret.
That said, I recognize that something will have to be done if the review/appeal process is often used.
>> (3) I think that review requests should be limited to
>> situations where the IAOC violates written procedures (their
>> own or the IASA BCP) and/or makes a decision that is against
>> the best interests of the IETF. The request for review should
>> be specific about what procedure was violated and/or how a
>> specific decision runs against the IETF's interests.
Leslie> I believe my text agrees with that. I'm positing that
Leslie> "best interests of the ietf" are captured in the BCP and
Leslie> the operational guidelines; to the extent that they do
Leslie> not, then it would be hard for the IASA to know what it
Leslie> was supposed to have done. This may mean that operational
Leslie> guidelines need to be created or updated for future
Leslie> situations.
I believe your definition of best interests of the IETF is too narrow; I believe this is the same issues as point 1 above.
Leslie> So -- what was the problem with the proposed text and
Leslie> these principles (apart from the one noted disagreement,
Leslie> above)?
I think we're down to that one core disagreement. Thanks for helping
me realize that.
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf