--On Tuesday, 12 September, 2006 13:26 -0700 "Hallam-Baker,
Phillip" <pbaker@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> John,
>
> While I agree that the IESG unlikely to change how it behaves
> I still don't think you have explained why it should resist
> changing the process so that it describes how it behaves in
> actual practice.
You are correct. I did not address that issue, partially
because, personally, I do not consider it very important. While
documenting what we are doing would be nice, I don't believe the
community is completely happy with what we are doing and, hence,
that energy would be better spent figuring out how to move
forward.
That said, if I were on the IESG, with many demands on my time,
I'd have serious doubts about the value of time spent getting
agreement on exactly what the current procedures are, probably
contraining behavior to those procedures, etc. In addition,
I'd have doubts, based on experience, that any effort to fully
document existing procedures would not result in a debate about
whether those procedures are appropriate (one which, as you
know, is ongoing already), tuning or modifying those procedures,
etc. So one might rationally conclude, first, that fully
describing the behavior as practiced would be nearly impossible
and, second, that it wouldn't be worth the effort.
Making improvements is another matter; it is at least possible
to justify that effort as worthwhile if the proposed
improvements really are improvements.
--On Tuesday, 12 September, 2006 16:32 -0400 "Steven M.
Bellovin" <smb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The IAB spends -- or spent; I haven't been on the IAB since
> 2000 -- an amazing percentage of its time on layer 9 issues.
> Most IAB members dislike that (and some ignore that part), but
> much of it seemed to be stuff that the IETF had to do. I
> suppose we could ask the Nomcom to select an IPB or an IPSG as
> well, but all things considered (and as one of the former
> stuckees) I think we're better off if our political relations
> were handled by folks with technical clue -- that is why the
> IETF's participation is generally sought.
Steve, I agree about layer 9 issues and the problems associated
both with investing the IAB in them and in seeking other
alternatives. But I see process change issues --ones that
impact how the IETF operates and makes decisions-- as somewhat
different from external political and policy issues. The impact
of decisions about them is different, as is the kind of
expertise needed to evaluate proposals against how the people
who do work in the IETF do, or might optimally do, that work.
That said, the only suggestion I've made over the last several
years about shifting process approval responsibility to the IAB
involved having that shift be temporary and part of a process of
figuring out some other model. I don't consider the IAB a good
long-term solution for process review and approval, partially
because I prefer an IAB that has a bit of distance from and a
different perspective on, active IETF standards-development and
decision-making (that view is probably controversial). But, if
we are going to make process changes we need, IMO, to get
unstuck from a situation in which the IESG is both naturally
resistant to, or at least very conservative about, such changes
and is the group that makes decisions about whether they are
appropriate for the community.
It _might_ be plausible to make the IAB --just because it is
there-- the review and consensus-evaluation body for a single
new proposal or package of proposals about how we make process
decisions going forward. The only alternative I can see (other
than bloody revolution) involves the selection of some sort of
"constitutional convention" body. I fear that such a body would
not be close enough to the IETF's technical work and how it gets
done to produce a satisfactory result that optimizes that work,
rather than elegant process models for those who like process
models.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf