Re: Should I* opinions be afforded a special status? (Re: [saag] Declining the ifare bof for Chicago)

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

 



I understand the technical judgment argument, but I see a lot of practical issues with it. First, an AD (or an IAB member) may not be an expert in all the topics under review; in fact it is probably unfair to assume that they are. Some of them seek help from the community (hear both sides of an argument, which to me is the right way to do it) and others seem to rely on one of their colleagues' opinion (I have heard people say, X thinks this is wrong/right and I believe them more than I believe Y who I have never met). That's only human, but it could also be wrong. What if X were biased and Y has a valid argument, which may or may not be immediately apparent to all (add to that language and cultural barriers, we may have serious practical issues). I can go on, but it sounds really bad, so we won't go there.

I appreciate your idea of checks and balances (your last paragraph), but I think they are not enough. Some ADs don't follow process. Even when explanation is sought on a topic, some ADs make light of the issue and others are non committal. Pointing out an issue sometimes is considered a problem. The recall process is a hammer and we never dare to actually use it. I want to also accentuate the positive: there are also many ADs/IAB members who take extra steps in the interest of fairness and engage in a dialog when there are issues. That is of course very much appreciated.

I am generally of the idea that concentration of power, that too without transparency and without practical checks and balances is dangerous. I would have thought it is a universally held opinion (perhaps with the exception of people who hold such power).

regards,
Lakshminath

On 6/12/2007 6:24 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
I may well be misreading Lakshminath below.
But the note as written seems to say that ADs are only supposed to judge consensus.
That misses important parts of the point.
They are also selected for technical judgement, and expected to use that judgement. So, for example, an AD is NOT required to sponsor an individual submission, nor required to sponsor a BoF. If they think the topic is a bad idea, or not in the IETFs area, or otherwise would not make a good WG< they are supposed to say no. Heck, they are supposed to say no to some working group charter requests, even when their is interest. (For example if they think that the proposed work plan will not lead to an effective outcome.) To be specific, that judgement is to be used for a lot more than just prioritizing the work.

Now, they should say "no" clearly, with a good explanation of the reasons. And they should be open to hearing responses which may change their view. But that does not change the fact that they are expect to exercise judgement.

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

At 03:17 PM 6/12/2007, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
Folks,

If you want the history of this thread, please see the SAAG mailing list archive.

Thomas,

...

We do not select our leaders for their technical knowledge alone. See the oral tradition part of 3777.

The idea that somehow the ADs and the IAB are above the rest of the contributors is just wrong. They are judges of consensus when appropriate and the consensus better be independently verifiable. In the end, the entire process works with the IETF Community's consensus where the IAB and the IESG get to prioritize the work.

regards,
Lakshminath


_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


_______________________________________________

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]