At 12:27 09-10-2013, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Now, there is indeed a possible issue, and that is that these chairs
were attending a "chief officer"-type meeting: there were CEOs and so
on, and (presumably by analogy) the chairs got invited to represent
the organizations of which they are chairs. John is quite right that
people unfamiliar with the way the IETF or IAB work might interpret
the statement along the lines of, "The CEO of the IETF said that the
IETF subscribes to some view." Normally, the leader of an
organization can direct that organization to some end; the Chair is
the leader; therefore, the Chair can direct the organization. Of
course, that's not how we operate (this is, I think, at the bottom of
this very discussion). But others might get that impression.
What I am not sure about is whether people are willing to accept the
chairs acting in that sort of "leader of organization" role. If we do
accept it, then I think as a consequence some communications will
happen without consultation. For a CEO is not going to agree to issue
a joint communique with someone who has to go negotiate the contents
of that communique (and negotiate those contents in public). If we do
not accept it, then we must face the fact that there will be meetings
where the IETF or IAB just isn't in the room, because we'll have
instructed the chairs not to act in that capacity.
There might be some history to the "we reject: kings, presidents and voting".
Should the IETF change the way it operates? There are advantages to
the Chair directing the organization. It is easier to set
policy. It is easier for the Chair to negotiate with other
organizations. There are disadvantages, for example, the policy
might not reflect the wishes of the community. The IETF might have
to reconsider whether people participate as individuals or as corporate folks.
There is the question of openness. If the IETF were to set policy
behind closed doors, can it say that it is open? "We" don't take
working group decisions behind closed doors. The IESG tries to take
its decisions in a transparent manner. There may have been a time
when it was not like that.
As I mentioned previously the IAB [1] is supposed to be based on
collegial responsibility. There hasn't been any discussion to change
that during the tenure of the last two IAB Chairs. What's different
now? The IAB has published statements and RFCs about its
positions. The Chairs can exercise their discretion.
The members of the IESG and the IAB have not mentioned that they do
not have the ability to negotiate under current rules [2]. The IETF
Chair and the IAB Chair have not mentioned that they are not able to
negotiate due to the current rules. The question of trust comes up
every now and then. Responsibility [3] seems to be an inconvenient
word on this mailing list.
What's the opinion of the persons who are part of "leadership" about all this?
Regards,
-sm
1. "People outside think IAB has power :-)"
2. I chose a word quickly.
3. the state or fact of being responsible, answerable, or accountable.