Hi, all:
Rich's point about the lack of additional voices from the dais
was well-taken, and given that it's clear that one source of
frustration among IETFers is a lack of information, I thought
it might (or possibly not, but it's worth a try) be helpful to
provide some additional perspective from the front of the room.
I also want to be clear that I'm speaking only for myself, and
while I've discussed a few of these things with other IAB members
I haven't discussed all of them. Of the issues I have raised
there really isn't anything resembling consensus - most
of this may, in fact, be very much a minority viewpoint. But, I
do think we need to improve our transparency where we can, and I
hope this helps provide an additional view of where we are and
how we got here.
First, for those of us not on the RSOC, what transpires between
the RSOC and the RSE is completely opaque. To me, it resembles
a black box, and it's not the case that we have some inside
information that we're hiding from you. Most of us just don't
know much. I think that this is a very good thing -
the RSOC members have domain expertise and a specific interest
in working with the RSE and RPC to get our documents published.
I suspect that most of us would agree that we don't want the IAB
micromanaging the RSOC or the RSE. Personally, I do trust the RSOC
and feel that what's gone wrong here is the result of structural
problems, a terrible confluence of events, and possibly some
misjudgments (again, I have no information about this, I'm just guessing
based on pretty much the same information you all have).
However, this lack of information has led to a situation in which the
IAB is *accountable* for RFC publication but not *responsible*, in the
sense that we aren't actually in a position to know how things are
going or influence much, but the buck still stops with us. I think this
is a structural problem, because there aren't really mechanisms
there that allow us to respond to problems as they develop (or even
be aware of them). I hope this isn't seen as an argument for the IAB to
be involved in (micro)managing the RFC publication process, because it's
not, it's just an observation about something I think can and should be
fixed through structural changes.
It's also the case that in general we usually try to figure out what's
inside black boxes by shaking them, tilting them, and basically trying
to affect the inside of the box in ways that force it to reveal
something about its contents. I've personally been reluctant to try to
figure out what's inside this black box because I've been worried that
the process of working through it might lead to bruising or other
damage, which I did not want to cause to happen. This may have looked
like disengagement or lack of concern, and for that I apologize, both to
the community and specifically to Heather.
On the rfc++ BOF, the IAB came out of it completely abashed. We
knew we'd messed up, we put out a statement explaining where we thought
we'd made mistakes, left the ball in Heather's court, and basically
never talked of it again. I think this is another mistake we made -
we should have followed up personally with Heather. I did not, for
which I also apologize.
I hope that people feel free to approach me and other IAB members for
discussions about this. If I can't tell you something I'll say so.
We are here in service to the community, and that means listening and
dialogue. Again, this is just one person's view and I am quite sure
that there are some things I've gotten wrong. I am optimistic about
finding a way forward towards identifying and resolving these issues
though, as discussion continues, both within the IAB and with the
community.
Speaking only for myself,
Melinda
--
Software longa, hardware brevis
PGP key fingerprint 4F68 2D93 2A17 96F8 20F2
34C0 DFB8 9172 9A76 DB8F
