On 10October2013Thursday, at 1:30, SM wrote:
> 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
well, I will stand up and claim to be part of the "leadership" - since this supposed to be a bottom up organization.
the IETF has changed the way it works and we see other fora come into existence that reflect a true bottom up approach. If we (the affected community) feel that a top down approach would be
for the best, going forward, I see no better top-down organization than the ITU-T. The community will decide the relevance of a group that ignores or dismisses their needs.
/bill
>
> 1. "People outside think IAB has power :-)"
> 2. I chose a word quickly.
> 3. the state or fact of being responsible, answerable, or accountable.