SM, --On Saturday, February 18, 2017 11:07 PM -0800 S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Yes, as long as you remember that they are supposed to be >> representing the will of the community and accountable to it. >> Neither WG Chairs nor ADs have any other source of authority. >> The difficulty with your statement above is that it can be >> read to imply that there are no constraints one, or appeals >> from, the decisions. That is not true or, more specifically, >> if one wants a healthy IETF that produces credible work, it >> better not be. > > It is possible to appeal the decision of the WG Chair, and if > that fails, to file an appeal with the Responsible AD. There > is still an option to file an appeal if the issue is noticed > later in the process. I think we are in danger of having two separate conversations here and not quite realizing it. I think Ted and I have been discussing what happens, or could happen, in practice. Your response has been to tell us what the procedures are and allow. I've confident that I understand those procedures and almost as confident that Ted does too. It is probably helpful to remind us, but let's not get them confused with what happens in reality (the difference between the procedures and reality may also be a useful conversation but it is, again, a different one). The most extreme example of the difference is, of course, that the written procedures specify a remedy for an AD who has gone off in the weeds, seriously underformed, or otherwise lost the confidence of the community in the form of a recall procedure. That procedure has never been used up to the point that a recall committee is appointed, much less beyond that point. One could infer from that that we've never had a serious problem with an AD. I don't think that is true, YMMD. One could also infer that informal discussions and interactions, including encouraging people to resign rather than face the actual recall procedure, have worked well, making that actual procedure unnecessary, but the procedures do not call for those actions. In the charter case, unless someone is following the work of a WG very closely (for which see the "I don't have time" discussion that spawned this thread), the first warning that the WG has produced work that drifted away from the charter involves a document showing up for IETF Last Call. That poses a very difficult problem for the AD for two reasons. First, inconsistency between a draft document and charter provisions can be the result of differing interpretations of the charter or a discovery that completing the chartered work required some excursions into directions not anticipated when the charter was written. Deviations from the charter are rarely a black-and-white matter: what is more typical is "some" or "a bit" and a judgment call as whether or not the issue is actually significant. In principle, we probably all agree that it would be best to revise the charter as soon as such situations are discovered. In practice, there are lots of reasons why that often doesn't happen, many of them rather good reasons. If the deviations are significant, one of the not-so-good reasons is the it requires ADs to admit that they let the WG get out of control. And, yes, a decision to not put the document on hold while the charter is revised can be appealed. But holding work up, especially work that appears to be finished, is a big deal and there is, appropriately, a lot of reluctance to do that. So the appeals don't happen and, when they do, they often don't go anywhere. > There are constraints. At the WG level, the WG Chair is > accountable to the Area Director. A competent Area Director > would probably ask for an explanation if the document exceeds > the scope of the WG Charter. Again, "exceeds" is a judgment call. Asking is one thing, getting a useful answer is another. And telling a WG that thinks it has finished a document and may be waiting to close down that they have to start fussing with charter revisions and/or completely redesign the specification is very hard and not always a good idea. best, john