On Wednesday, May 23, 2007 12:40:43 PM -0700 Lakshminath Dondeti
<ldondeti@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Brian, Scott,
Many thanks for your responses, but here are some followup notes.
The problem I see is that WG chairs and ADs have a lot of latitude in
running WGs or areas.
This is not a problem; it's a feature.
The possibility for abuse is tremendous
Not really. The decisions that chairs and AD's make are all public, and
nearly all of the input to those decisions is also public. There is plenty
of opportunity to review what they are doing and speak up if you see
something problematic. There is also generally lots of opportunity to
resolve issues informally before the formal appeals process becomes
necessary.
they get to read consensus however they like
Well, no. The job of a chair or WG is to judge for what there is or is not
a (rough) consensus. There are a lot of tools available for use in making
those judgements, but ultimately the nature of a consensus is that if you
claim there is one and it isn't so, then people will object.
and may advance or block a particular
document or work item based on personal preferences.
Certainly not. Chairs or AD's may _express_ preferences like any other
participant, but are expected to judge consensus on the basis of consensus,
and not personal preference. As I mentioned above, when this doesn't
happen, people object.
Note, however, that both chairs and AD's are also expected to exercise
technical judgement. If a WG tries to advance a document that is clearly
underspecified, or fails to meet basic requirements that the IETF has
established, or that is otherwise "not ready", then it is his job _not_ to
forward that document until it is ready -- otherwise, he is wasting the
time of the IESG and of the IETF as a whole. Of course, it is possible to
have a situation in which a technical decision must be made and the chair
is in the "rough"; in such a sitution the chair is expected to forward the
document anyway, possible with comments if he feels strongly that the
decision in question is a mistake.
The inconsistent
behavior goes either unquestioned or explained away as being within the
rules. The recourse is the appeals process which to most people looks
like a hammer and thus seldom used.
Well, quite a lot of inconsistent behavior _is_ perfectly legitimate.
Different people have different management styles, and different groups
operate in different ways. Nothing says everything has to work exactly the
same every time -- this is an organization of people, not computers. Our
process gives chairs and AD's a lot of latitude, because it must in order
for the organization to function. However, it also includes a lot of
checks against abuse, both intentional and otherwise.
The appeals process is actually used fairly regularly, and it should be
noted that the only appeals that come to the attention of this list are
generally those that reach the level of appeals to the IESG as a whole.
Things that get resolved at the WG chair or AD level are likely to
completely escape your notice if you're not involved. As, of course, are
issues that are resolved informally.
Nothing wrong with it, unless of course, the WG gets used to that mode of
operation and demands that everything be decided based on WG consensus
(which on spurious issues could mean that a vocal minority gets to decide
how things work).
A vocal minority only gets to decide if the majority consents, or the chair
is asleep at the switch. Being loud does not make one part of a consensus.
Reopening the discussion when there is substantial new information is one
thing, but revisiting past decisions every time someone has some free
time leads to endless delays. All I am saying is that we need to have
some determinism in the process.
A good chair will prevent that from happening. And while a certain amount
of determinism is useful, a completely deterministic process is neither
required nor necessarily good. Our process involves groups of humans
attempting to reach agreement; often this requires mediation by a human
exercising good judgement in order to be successful.
But they must always add "to be confirmed on the list" and must always
do so - if they don't, it's a clear process violation and can be
appealed.
This is one of the things I am trying to get a clear sense of. How is
this supposed to work in case of BoFs?
BOF's are not working groups, and in most cases, they don't get to make
consensus decisions. In particular, they do _not_ get to decide whether a
working group will be formed or what its charter will say (though this
seems to be a common misconception). Those decisions rest with the
sponsoring AD(s) and the IESG; the purpose of a BOF is to guage interest
and provide a forum for community input.
-- Jeff
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf