On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 8:18 AM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> 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 beIn a way, your question is another symptom of the problem. A
> 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?
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".
I think it's merely a symptom of the fact that I haven't thought about it long enough, and just compared it to my related experiences. In particular, it seems strange to have, say, a team of technical leads creating HR functions when there are higher management layers likely more skilled (or enabled) to do so, but I admit that's basically a direct comparison to my own work environments, which are nothing like the IETF's structure.
In that only-slightly-grey experience, I've also observed that our major process statements, including discipline procedures, appear primarily in BCPs and not IESG edicts. Some IESG statements are clarifications of those BCPs, but I couldn't find one that establishes an entirely new HR-like function. That's part of the dissonance that caused me to post.
I can't now think of a better body to make such a declaration, other than the full consensus process by which BCPs are minted.
(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.
That also seems to suggest to me that a BCP ought to be the end-state of this effort. I'd be happy to contribute to working on such a thing.
-MSK