----- Original Message ----- From: "John C Klensin" <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2018 9:56 AM > --On Monday, October 1, 2018 09:27 +0000 tom petch wrote: > > >... > > The weakness, for me, > > manifests itself in the lack of input by WG Chairs. Thus I > > would like such chairs to be discouraged from creating I-Ds, > > rather focussing on helping other people's I-Ds progress. > > When a chair creates an I-D, then they are spending less time > > on managing the work of others, they cannot themselves perform > > the role of the chair w.r.t. the I-D, they may have a conflict > > of interest between the ideas in their I-D and those of other > > I-Ds, all bad news for progress. I think, too, that chairs > > should be restrained in their comments, being more in the role > > of a casting vote, rather than cheer-leader for any particular > > idea. > >... > > Tom, > > Out of curiosity and to test your reasoning, how do you feel > about ADs creating I-Ds? Your argument would seem to apply even > more strongly to them, at least unless the I-D reflects an > already-mostly-established IESG position. In the latter case, > there is a question of whether the IESG (or especially those > AD-authors) can adequately and fairly judge IETF consensus about > their own documents. Perhaps that is a different topic, but, > given your cheerleader remark, perhaps not. > > Along the same lines, do you think we need explicit guidelines > about any or all of: > > * AD creates document, then processes it as AD-sponsored? If > yes to this one, does it make any different if some other AD > sponsors it as a favor? > > * Person in AD's department at work is the listed author for a > document the AD then sponsors? > > * Document author is the spouse, significant other, or best > buddy of an AD who then AD sponsors the document? Or said > person is appointed as a WG Chair? > > While I'm aware of several of those scenarios having occurred, > I'm not aware of any actual abuse or unfair treatment of others > or of dissenting opinions. However, the optics are not > wonderful and, if there was abuse and it were tolerated, it > might give some organizations an incentive to try to "stack" the > Nomcom in order to get people on the IESG who would give them > power. > > If your answer is "yes" to any of the above, does it make a > difference if the documents are standards-track or Informational? John I do not have the same concern about ADs creating documents; I was conscious of that when I made my post and was wondering why. Partly it is because I am rarely aware of it having happened in the WGs I track (Routing, Operations). Perhaps also because I expect the WG Chairs to be aware of it and to pay due attention. I think that one problem we now have is while Areas have multiple ADs (mostly), a WG will usually have one designated AD and so there is less likelihood of another AD for the Area keeping an eye out (perhaps a consequence of the sheer volume of I-Ds we produce) should the designated AD being too closely connected with the work. If an AD creates an I-D and then I would regard it as wrong for them to AD sponsor it; if they cannot find another AD, then I think that the I-D should not progress. The prospect of AD and author being in the same department had not occurred to me; I look at e-mail addresses to get a sense of where people might be coming from (if a routing I-D has authors with e-mail addresses of, say, Cisco, Juniper and ano, then I think that this is likely to progress and should do so); and the increasing use of gmail and such like makes it even less likely I would be aware of there being a lack of diversity in those associated with an I-D so yes, this is a concern. Likewise I am not sufficiently involved that I would be aware of a relationship - spouse, buddy and such like - in those involved with an I-D (AD, WG Chair, author) again, that would be a concern. I think that a connection between AD and WG Chair is a concern; I look to WG Chairs to keep the processes on track, to ensure progress happens when it is right for it to do so, and vice versa (I always smile when I see a WG Chair say that an I-D will not be adopted as a WG item since there is insufficient support for it, something that hindsight suggests should happen more often). ADs I see as crucial but more for technical input, being aware of the wider picture, particularly for the technology that the Area is concerned with but also with the technology of other Areas too. Informational versus Standards Track does not affect my views - I think that the difference is not understood by most of those in the business of the Internet and while it is helpful to us, it is not critical; likewise the different status within Standards Track I can only recall one instance when I thought that an AD was wrong, and that was badly so; that was clear to me from comments on this list - the AD did not retract or admit to a faux pas, but I think that all those posting here knew the score. I do have a concern that, in the time I have been involved with the IETF, there has, in a sense, been a decline in diversity, that engineering interests can play second fiddle to political or commercial interests, that I sometimes see a lot of input, from a number of contributors, coming from a limited affiliation and that what we then get is not in the bests interests of the Internet as a whole. I see WG Chairs, and to some extent, ADs as crucial to keeping this in check. HTH Tom Petch > best, > john
