Re: Mud. Clear as. Re: Rough consensus? #425 3.5

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



>>>>> "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

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]