Jordi,
Let me make a very general observation, based on my experience
with the IETF.
Where administrative procedures are concerned, the IETF
functions well when the IESG is given general guidance by the
community but then applies good judgment and discretion to the
situations that arise. If the community observes that the
IESG's judgment is not good enough, we readjust the general
guidance -- by complaints to individual ADs, by notes to the
IESG, by discussion on the IETF list, or even via appeals if
that is needed. If one or more specific ADs regularly abuse
that discretionary authority, they get abused in return on
mailing lists, in plenaries, in discussions with nomcoms, and,
if necessary, by recalls or at least serious discussions of
recalls.
By contrast, when we try to write down the specific rules that
should be applied, or the list of rules or steps they should use
in making decisions, and try to reach consensus on them, two
things happen, and happen over and over again:
(1) We spend (I would say "waste", but you may
reasonably disagree) a huge amount of time discussing
both the details of the proposals and whether or not the
proposals are appropriate. In my personal opinion, the
IETF would be a better and more effective place to get
work done if a higher percentage of the community's
energy went into technical work than into discussions of
procedural details.
(2) We get the details wrong, resulting in more time
being spent correcting the details of the rules that,
IMO, we might have been better off not having in the
first place.
In addition, if we get the details seriously wrong, the IESG has
historically responded by applying a meta-rule. That meta-rule
is that their first obligation is to keep the IETF functioning.
And, on that basis, once they conclude that whatever has been
written down and established by consensus makes no sense, they
simply ignore ignore it. That action creates a very unhappy
and unhealthy environment, whether it is appealed or not, but
often may still be better than the alternative.
So, for a case like this, I suggest that you might want to have
a conversation, with any AD you think is likely to listen, about
whether the present guidance is sufficient and whether
additional guidance or discussion would help. ADs persuading
other ADs about IESG matters and customs can be far more
effective than any of us writing I-Ds to pin down details. If
there are no ADs with whom you feel that you can have such a
conversation, then I think you need to chat with the Nomcom but
I, at least, have generally found ADs to be receptive on these
sorts of issues... even ADs with whom I generally don't get
along well (not that there are any of those on the current IESG).
Let's try to avoid yet another round of stretched-out
discussions on, e.g., how many days constitutes adequate notice,
how to measure the accessibility of a location, what conditions
are sufficient to justify an exception, and whatever other
questions start to arise as soon as one tries to lock down
specific rules. If an interim meeting is announced that is
likely to cause specific harm (as distinct from being an issue
of principles about dates and locations), complain to the
relevant AD and, if necessary, appeal the decision to approve
the meeting. But most of us, yourself certainly included, have
more productive things to do with our time than starting another
one of these procedural debate threads.
Just my opinion, of course.
john
--On Thursday, 26 January, 2006 10:02 -0400 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
<jordi.palet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Harald,
>
> In my opinion the 30 days rule is a good one, it may be
> possible to make it a bit flexible, just indicating 3-4 weeks
> before a meeting instead of 30 days. My comment, based on very
> recent experience, is that the rest of the Interim meeting
> planning procedure must be described more explicitly.
>
> The idea is not to have this in a new draft, or if actually we
> want it, make it in specific one, not mixed with anything else.
>
> The actual rules on this are at
> http://www.ietf.org/IESG/STATEMENTS/Interim-meetings.txt
>
> "The area directors will evaluate proposed interim meetings
> and conference calls to be sure that that the location,
> timing, etc. do not unfairly favor some subset of the
>...
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf