Fit might be the right criteria if the objective here is to have a nice jolly time. We have a rather serious responsibility here. Many of the best people in the field are not exactly known for being easy to get along with. > -----Original Message----- > From: Ted Hardie [mailto:hardie@xxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 5:22 PM > To: Lakshminath Dondeti; Thomas Narten > Cc: IETF Discussion > Subject: Re: Should I* opinions be afforded a special status? > (Re: [saag] Declining the ifare bof for Chicago) > > >> > >>Yes, I* opinions are afforded special status. They are our chosen > >>leadership, and with leadership comes responsibility. > Responsibility > >>to be sure that if the work goes forward, it is well scoped, has a > >>reasonable likelyhood of success, etc. And please remember, > the IETF > >>is a meritocracy. So please don't raise the "I* has special status" > >>issue as if it were some kind of unfair or biased way of > doing things. > > Knowing Thomas pretty well, I think this is just an > unfortunate juxtaposition of two different statements. The > IETF, as a whole, values technical input (rather than raw > voting). Statements which are backed by analysis, careful > thought, and reasoned arguments will be given more weight > than a +1 on a mailing list. As 3935 states, the IETF is > committed to > taking that input from anyone: "the issues on which the IETF > produces its documents are issues where the IETF has the > competence needed to speak to them, and that the IETF is > willing to listen to technically competent input from any > source". The weight assigned is from all concerned, but it > is up to the working group chair/ADs to assess the > community's reaction to a proposal or other technical input. > They assess, in some form, how the community weights the > technical arguments. So the IETF leadership is, in effect, > given a responsibility related to that assessment. > > That does not mean the IETF leadership is itself a > meritocracy; it's not. > The IESG and IAB are picked by NomComs for a variety of > skills and "fit" is a critical one. Someone who can fit into > the team the NomCom is building may be selected over someone > who is equal or better in any or all of our technical > disciplines, because of the need to balance skills, > personalities, and time commitments. This last is a > particularly important point, as the IETF is led, > fundamentally, by people who have the will, time, and > resources to dedicate to that effort. There will likely > always be people who have more "merit" on some objective > scale than those who are selected, but who cannot serve > because they lack time or support. > > In assessing an IESG or IAB member's reaction to a document, > BoF proposal, I think we should consider the *time* they put > into it; each has dedicated significant time to getting an > overall context for the IETF, which may involve knowledge of > what the competing proposals for attention are and other > dragons in the upcoming road. That may give weight to their > opinion, but it has to be matched by time spent on analysis > of the specifics. An IESG member who puts a discuss on a > document with "this feels wrong" is given considerable > pressure to make an actionable statement instead, with a real > analysis backing it; the same is or should be true for > statements during a BoF or WG meeting. > > For an AD to say: "I don't see community consensus on this, > here's how you could demonstrate it" is more than fair; it is > actionable. For an AD to say "I don't see how this would get > deployment, so I don't want to spend IETF cycles on it, > here's what it would take to demonstrate it could get deployed" > is also actionable. But neither statement relies on a > "meritocracy", they rely on management. For *anyone* to say > "I don't think this is technically correct or the optimal > solution" will require the same analysis, careful thought, > and reasoned analysis that is the hallmark of good IETF > input. That includes > statements by members of the IESG or IAB. It will also > require follow-up, > and continued engagement on the technical solution; if it > doesn't, then the community needs a statement on why the IESG > or IAB don't think the problem is worth the time. In other > words, if there won't be *technical* engagement, there needs > to be a clear management reason given for that. > > BoFs have been hard in this space for a long time. But since > they are how the IETF remains a technical vital, relevant > place to do work, I think they are worth the time it takes to > respond to proponents, either technically or as a management > issue, on why they are or are not going forward. > > regards, > Ted Hardie > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf