We no have de-facto term limits for ADs and it is no longer considered acceptable for an AD to chair a working group (excepting process related groups chaired by the IETF chair).
Gradually the IETF is shedding the constitutional innovations that were meant to be better than democracy in favor of processes and procedures that have been observed to work.
No, I do not expect a repeat of last time when the NEWTRK proposals were killed in private and everyone sat in silence like a row of puddings when I asked them to explain their reasons in the plenary.
At this point we do not have an assumption that the IESG operates by collective responsibility makes decisions for the whole IETF in private and then refuses to give reasons. That assumption is now dead, deceased, ... snuffed it, that is an ex-assumption.
Just thought I would take the opportunity to point it out.
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 11:31 AM, Spencer Dawkins <spencer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I've mentioned this to Russ privately, but it's worth saying it out loud ...IESG discussions are now a lot more visible to anyone from the community who cares to look, than they were during any part of NEWTRK. Beginning in late 2005, the IESG has published narrative minutes from every official telechat (details at http://www.ietf.org/iesg/minutes/2010/ for this year).
Phillip:
Obviously, I was not General AD when this happened. However, I was
Security AD at the time, so I was involved in the discussions that
included the whole IESG.
I made my reply to your posting because I want people to realize that
there is another side to the story. We need to learn from the history,
but we need to act toward improving the future.
The IESG spent a huge amount of time on the NEWTRK documents in retreat.
The ISD proposal hit the IESG in a very bad way. The ISD proposal
required the IESG spend a lot of time that the individuals simply did
not have. Further, this came at a very, very bad time. Admin-Rest had
consumed way to many cycles. Perhaps the 1-step or 2-step proposals
could have been separated from ISDs, but that was not the path that was
taken. I do not know the reasons.
When I served as IESG scribe, there were VERY few unminuted discussions, and they were identified as "executive session" in the minutes.
In addition, I THOUGHT Scott Bradner had requested publication of https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-newtrk-repurposing-isd/, and that was the straw that broke the camel's back, but I didn't see any IESG evaluation records for any of the NEWTRK documents, except for the DECRUFT draft (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-newtrk-decruft-experiment/). Speaking only for myself, I didn't know much about what the IESG thought before the NEWTRK session at IETF 63 in Paris, even though I was note-taker for every NEWTRK meeting, and I was an active working group participant (perhaps too active :-).
I did not have the understanding about the IESG reaction to NEWTRK that Russ described in his note - and I don't think Russ is mistaken about that reaction.
We have significantly improved the transparency of the IESG to the community since NEWTRK was on the docket. I can't tell you that Russ's current proposal will be accepted, but I think I can tell you that members of the community will better understand what the IESG's concerns are, and members of the community will understand which ADs have those concerns, so we can work on resolving them.
This isn't a knock at anyone serving on the IESG during the NEWTRK era, all of whom except for Russ have moved on from their honorable service, and certainly not at Brian, who supported IESG narrative minutes as General Area Director when that was still controversial. It was just a different time.
We still need to improve, of course, but it's fair to recognize the progress we've made.
Thanks,
Spencer
--
Website: http://hallambaker.com/
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf