On 2/19/18 06:54, John C Klensin wrote: > > > --On Sunday, February 18, 2018 22:51 -0800 joel jaeggli > <joelja@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 2/17/18 05:16, John C Klensin wrote: >> ... >>> Scott, >>> >>> A question about the above, with the hope that it will never >>> become important. I believe that traditionally any and all >>> ADs in a particular area are jointly responsible for every WG >>> in that area, i.e., that splitting WGs in a given area among >>> ADs is an administrative convenience, not a change of >>> responsibility in the sense above. Is that still the case >>> or is the above language a back door effectively creating >>> mini-areas with one AD each? And, if the latter, should >>> assignments of WGs to ADs be something that is a bit more >>> transparent than it has been, e.g., something that should be >>> part of the review at WG charter time, subject to review and >>> appeal when changes are made to responsibility for existing >>> WGs (even if the changes are due to AD turnover), and even >>> something that should be explicitly visible to the Nomcom? >> >> The above sentence is a non-sequitor. Working groups are >> assigned at chartering through. sponsorship it's not clear how >> you'd be more transparent then simply asking an AD to sponsor >> your BOF / Charter. >> >> RFC 2418 >> >> A working group may be established >> at the initiative of an Area Director or it may be >> initiated by an individual or group of individuals. Anyone >> interested in creating an IETF working group MUST obtain >> the advice and consent of the IETF Area Director(s) in >> whose area the working group would fall and MUST proceed >> through the formal steps detailed in this section. > > Joel, > > At the time 2418 was written, areas with more than one AD > existed, but were not the norm, and, IIR, we had never had one > with three ADs. Also, while WGs that had existed for years > existed (a few of those continue to exist near 20 years later), > they are now much more common, making multiple responsible ADs > over the lifespan of a WG almost inevitable. If there is one > one AD in an area, the Nomcoom at least has the opportunity to > consider effects on continuing WGs when deciding how to fill an > open slot. In multiple-AD areas, when ADs turn over, WGs are > typically reshuffled among the new and returning ADs. At least > in many cases, those decisions occur without community > visibility and without any explicit discussion with the affected > WGs or even their chairs. The IESG believes it has the power to divy up work among the available members. We have plenty of existence proofs dating back decades. > Also at that time, we tended to get a little anxious when the > same company (or its near-affiliates) was employing or > supporting multiple members of the IESG and/or IAB. By my rough > count, today we have three organizations with two IESG or IAB > members each and one with four. There was also a strong > cultural assumption in the IESG that having an AD responsible > for a WG whose chair was employed or supported by the same > company was a seriously bad idea. I gather that assumption has > been relaxed as well, especially with WGs with co-chairs. Getting anxious is the nominal state, that means we're on the lookout for the appearance of conflict of interest. The Industry that contributes people and time to the IETF is consolidating. Eventually it will be gone and we'll have to do something else; Until then it's harder to throw willing and able contributors under the bus because of the incoveience of their current employer then in the past. > None of these changes are inherently bad and I'm certainly not > accusing anyone of bad intentions, much less bad actions. > However, were we revising 2418 (or, around this topic, 2026 and > its successors) today I believe there are a number of issues > that we would want to address that simply were not judged as > important enough in 1998 (or in 1994 when RFC 1603 was > published). > > At least from my point of view, part of the problem is that > while the IETF has been paying very careful attention to > intellectual property issues, there has been too little concern > about that appearance of conflicts of interest, concentration of > decision-making in particular industry actors, and antitrust and > competitiveness issues. They're not solvable problems. > Or answer to those concerns has often > been that everyone participates as an individual so there is no > problem but, especially in situations in which "follow the > money" is an important maxim, that claim would not survive a > laugh test and "I recused myself by not voting on that matter" > (even though I might still participate in informal discussions > and give advice about it) wouldn't last much longer. If we produce bad work product because we've been railroaded down an particular architectural path by a bad actor, how is that distinguishable from previous outcomes? The ability to construct a better submarine is not in much doubt. > These may be issues that the IETF will continue to ignore. If > we extrapolate from the past, ignoring them has been a good > strategy because there have been no serious ill effects of doing > so. However, neither the WG-AD relationship nor the suggestion > that Nomcoms should be able to pay attention to how particular > AD candidates have handled or might handle potential conflicts > of interest strikes me as anything near a non-sequitor. If your candidate pool consists of one or two individuals for a seat the granularity with with respect to choice is limited. Nomcom interviews / questionnaires I've been subjected to have probed how ADs address conflicts, especially in areas where they are the principle contributor. There is also a strong bias favoring incumbents unless they've proved somehow unsuitable; given that; about half the time they question comes down to how well did they do it, rather than how might they. > john > >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
