--On Sunday, 17 June, 2007 22:43 -0700 Lakshminath Dondeti
<ldondeti@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> IMO, you have to have a structure/process/rules that assumes
>> people are generally trying to do the Right Thing. For checks
>> and balances, you then also need appeals procedures and a
>> willingness to speak up and challenge parties when there is
>> evidence of bad decision making.
>
> Agreed. I guess I challenge when there is an appearance of
> bad decision making. I would rather not wait until things get
> out of hand and then attempt use of the hammer of appeals.
> That is just my personal preference.
For reasons associated with, but not identical to, Joel's
reasons for objecting to determinism, I think the position you
express here is ultimately dangerous.
I believe that we should be selecting IESG and IAB members who
can and will exhibit very high levels of technical maturity and
breath, and consistent good judgment. I believe that being
sufficiently mature and self-aware to avoid either substituting
one's own judgment for that of the community or imposing one's
personal preferences as a blocking requirement is a corollary of
that selection criterion. If we cannot find enough people like
that, we should shrink the relevant bodies and, if necessary,
the amount of work the IETF tries to do, rather than trying to
get by on third-rate people.
If, being human, IESG or IAB members occasionally slip up, or
need to be asked to consider actions a second time and more
carefully, I think the appeals process is reasonable and
appropriate, not some sort of "hammer" that must be used only in
rare and particularly egregious circumstances. I note, as
others have noted, that most appeals end at the first stage or
two. I believe that is a sign of health.
Similarly, if an IESG or IAB member turns out to have been a
seriously bad choice --because the Nomcom, despite its best
efforts, put someone in place who doesn't come up to the
criteria and expectations above-- or burns out and starts
consistently exhibiting behavior that doesn't meet that
standard, then I think we should, as a community, encourage them
to step down (IMO, one of the reasons we don't see recalls more
often is that, if someone insisted on staying on after having
clearly lost the confidence of the community, whatever Nomcom
made the appointment would have made a _really_ bad decision --
arguably much worse than any we have seen).
So my model is that we give the I* a lot of discretion, we
appoint members of whom we have very high expectations about the
technical ability and general wisdom to apply judgment, and then
we hold them to those expectations.
If, instead, we reduce that discretion, create and take
advantage for more second-guessing over essentially trivial
things, and try to rely more on procedures (and "determinism")
rather than judgment, we will end up recruiting and appointing
the sorts of people who like working in the environment we
create for them. And, in the long term, I think that causes a
catastrophe (in the pattern of a number of bodies who operate by
procedure rather than judgment and wisdom.
I like what we have a lot better, even on the days when I feel
obligated to seem to be the voice of obnoxious opposition.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf