| John
Another way of looking at this is that the IESG have a set of responsibilities (delegated authorities if you prefer) as does the IETF Executive Director and as does the IRTF Chair, and if those get together to coordinate on how they do their work and do not exceed any of their responsibilities then why does that need a label or formal recognition? Or is it your view that a) the responsibilities have been exceeded; or b) this type coordination across roles needs community consensus approval before it is allowed to happen? Your note implies b) rather than a) which seems surprising so I suspect I’m just missing a nuance.
Jay
Hi.
In a note I posted to this list under an hour ago, I used the
term "management team". I hope no one was offended by that as I
didn't mean any offense, only to describe something I see
unfolding.
Under normal circumstances, the IETF has prided itself on making
decisions bottom-up. Several aspects of that principle have
come up on this list in recent months including discussions of
where proposals for WGs should originate, discussions of how the
IESG interacts with the community, and so on. In emergencies
and when tight deadlines suddenly arise, we generally allow
various leadership bodies, notably the IESG, a good deal of
flexibility to Do the Right Thing rather than failing to deal
with the emergencies or deadlines because we get too entangled
with procedures. IMO, the decision to cancel the f2f meeting
of IETF 107 and instead take it "virtual" (online) was just one
such emergency, one that the IESG sensibly dealt with by
organizing a small team that consisted of its members, the IRTF
Chair, and, presumably the IETF (LLC) Executive Director,
consulting whichever WG Chairs and maybe other that they thought
reasonable to consult, and then made and announced a decision.
However, it seems to me that we should now be returning to
normal, even if it is only a new, or even temporary, normal. If
so, it is legitimate for the community to ask (or be asked)
whether it agrees with who is being included or excluded from
decision processes like that and who is making the decisions
more generally. That is clearly not the IESG alone, it is
presumably not the Executive Director alone. But, to the extent
to which a new body or group is being set up --one that, given
the nature of these decisions, I think resembles a management
team -- maybe the IETF community should be consulted about its
organization and structure. I don't recall anything in the
IASA2 or LLC documents that says the community has turned that
authority over to any other body, explicit or ad hoc even though
it is clear that, in both the IASA and IASA2 decisions, the
community decided that it wanted to get out of decisions on
day-to-day operations, contracts, and administrative procedures.
I also think is is entirely plausible that, if consulted, the
community will decide that the current apparent decision-making
structure is just right; I'm only suggesting that some
consultation is in order.
Or maybe I'm the only one who cares about these things, in which
case apologies for wasting people's time.
best,
john
|
