Comments in line... On 05/11/2013 05:18, John C Klensin wrote: > > --On Monday, 04 November, 2013 07:40 -0800 "Murray S. Kucherawy" > <superuser@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> ... >> I have a related question: Is the IESG the right body to be >> making these sorts of declarations in the first place? It >> seems to me that an engineering steering group is a bit >> outside of its jurisdiction to be establishing what amount to >> human resources positions. The analogy to the corporate >> environment, i.e., technical managers and team leads, would >> certainly be the wrong body to be taking on the creation of a >> higher-level HR function. >> >> Shouldn't this be coming from one of the operational bodies >> higher up? My first reaction to this question was: there is no "higher up" except the IETF as a whole. So the question is really whether our steering group chose to steer in a direction that the IETF as a whole accepts (at the level of rough consensus). > In a way, your question is another symptom of the problem. A > volunteer organization for which it is important that people > _not_ have to apply for membership and for whom applying > sanctions against a participant is one of the most problematic > actions we can take has no business having a "higher-level HR > function". > > As to the body, there are basically two choices: > > (1) ISOC could do it for/to us, but we've probably be _really_ > unhappy about that. Certainly I would (and I've been a member of ISOC since 1992). > (2) The IESG, IAB, or IAOC could decide some action was > necessary and move toward taking it. I think we could quibble > for a rather long time about which of those bodies was most (or > least) appropriate to do it or create another group to do so. > While my personal guess is that the IESG is least obnoxious for > this sort of situation, I think the key issue isn't the body but > how it proceeds. For that purpose, it seems critical to me > (and, if I've correctly understood him, to Dave) that there be > real, explicit, community buy-in on any results and meaningful > IESG (or other body) accountability to the community for the > results. > > What follows that is where I suspect I may differ from Dave a > bit. I'm prepared to have the IESG say "We have concluded that > doing something to reduce the harassment level and potential > around the IETF is important and no one has really disputed that > conclusion in on-list discussions. It is clear that there is no > consensus about exactly what to do and it doesn't seem likely > that one will emerge. Sometimes, it just isn't acceptable to > have lack of consensus (even rough) block doing anything at all, > so we are going to make the following moves... Here are the > names of those on the IESG who supported that move; if you don't > like it, or if we take actions like this too often for the > community's taste, fire us.". Now, I'd be a lot happier if the > hypothetical action included a policy that was clearly > experimental with an evaluation plan for going back to the > community after a year or so (thanks to Brian Carpenter for at > least part of that idea). Well yes, I think a one-year trial run would be a wise approach, but I should say that although a bit more to and fro with the community would have been better, I also understand Jari's desire to get something in place before this week. So I'm not as critical as Dave and John. Nevertheless, it does seem to me that the IESG doen't have *authority* in this area, even though they clearly feel a responsibility. So there's no way out of dialogue. BTW personally I didn't comment on the draft policy because it seemed good enough and not worth twiddling the details. It's the execution that matters, and that depends on the ombudshuman much more than on anything written. Brian > I'd be happier yet if that > evaluation plan included some meaningful measurements (but the > design, execution, and analysis of such measurements is part of > my real professional field, so I know better than most how hard > that is and what the traps are in trying it). In a sufficiently > unusual situation, the presence of some data and experience, if > the community can't reach (even rough) consensus on what to do, > running code may trump consensus. > > But, generally, I think we should all be concerned when the IESG > starts making proclamations about important IETF participation > issues, especially if those proclamations could lead to > sanctions that could be very troublesome indeed. If the IESG > concludes that they need to take a significant action that is > not the result of clear community discussion, support, and rough > consensus, then I expect them to follow the spirit of the > RFC2026 Variance Procedure, i.e., explain what is being done and > why it is being done and to put their AD "jobs" on the line when > doing so. Whether explicit or not, I think ADs assenting to a > final action on a significant procedural change that doesn't > have the sort of support and process behind it that Dave > outlines should be asking themselves whether they are prepared > to resign (not just wait for the Nomcom or a recall that has > become procedurally impossible) if the community doesn't go > along with the action. It should be considered that serious. > > Just my opinion. > > best, > john