Re: [arch-d] [IAB] The IAB Liaison Oversight program - feedback on closing

[Bernard Aboba <[e-mail]>]

I must say, I find this discussion quite confusing.

The management of liaisons is a fundamental task of the IAB.  *How* the IAB
organizes itself to carry out the task is up to the IAB.

But the IAB does need to examine the functioning of liaison relationships
on a regular basis, as well as monitoring the performance of
liaison managers, so as to appoint or replace them as needed (or choose not
to reappoint a replacement if there is no need).

For that periodic review to get done, someone on the IAB has to step up and
take a leadership role, and probably at least one other IAB member should
take part, just to provide some backup/burden sharing.

The individual(s) then report to the IAB on a regular basis.  You can call
those individual(s) the "IAB leads" or a "Program", it doesn't much
matter.  But you can't just say "the IAB will do it" - if you don't have
specific individuals identified, and a regular rhythm for the work, then
it's not likely to happen by accident.

And this regular work *does* need to be done - or else you end up with
liaison managers who have long since lost interest, or worse - managers who
take advantage of the lack of IAB oversight to overstep their roles.

In that sense, liaison management is is quite a different IAB
responsibility than say, the RFC Editor Program, where it was envisaged
that the IAB would *not* get involved in the details.

So when it is said "the program did not meet",  I am wondering whether this
really means that the IAB hasn't been soliciting liaison reports on a
regular basis, or paying attention to the performance of liaison managers.
If so, that's not a statement about "the program" - it's a statement about
the IAB - and something that should be brought to the attention of the
nomcom.

On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 3:21 PM Wes Hardaker <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> Here I sit.  Perched on the fence.
>
> I'm convinced that the existing program was either not needed or at
> least not functional as is (not meeting is a clear indication of that).
> Thus, I think a recharter likely wouldn't have been helpful because it
> would have left an existing non-functional structure in place with a
> minor incremental change (or at least, that's what I think the most
> likely outcome would be).
>
> It would be best, IMHO, to decide what *is* needed and then come up with
> a structure that works to support that.  I doubt it will look like what
> it used to look like.
>
> Here's some example bullets of what might be needed for such a program:
>
> * Evaluation of the program as a whole
> * Evaluation of liaisonships with each other organization
> * Evaluation of changes for organizations with which we have or need
>   relationships with
> * Evaluation for how to best distribute incoming information from
>   liaisonships to the rest of the IETF technical community.
> * [your ideas here]
>
> Here's what should be out of scope (IMHO):
>
> * Evaluation of individual liasons -- that's in the IAB's charter
> * Handling of the liaison reports/interactions themselves -- (again, IAB)
>
> Here's the things that might be needed to achieve the goals:
>
> * A person or group of people responsible to ensure the program (or
>   whatever) is operational and active (chairs)
> * Assured representation from the IETF (including, but limited to, the
>   IAB, the IESG, the wider IETF community, ....)
> * Assured representation from the external organizations that may wish
>   to have a voice (the SDOs with which we interact may want to
>   participate -- we may even facility dialog at a higher level)
>
> What are the risks?
>
> * this could quickly grow much bigger than need be (the above is already
>   potentially too large)
> * this could quickly grow too political
> * this could quickly become bureaucratic
> * And, like its predecessor, it could become forgotten and unused
>
> ...
>
> I think the liaisonships with other SDOs are critical to our success as
> an SDO in the Internet ecosystem.  A lot has happened in the last 10
> years that has proven that.  The existing liaisonships do work, and we
> do hear from and communicate with and through them.  The question left:
> is there more that should be done to improve the work, or better yet,
> help the liaisons themselves be more effective?  If so, what?
>
> --
> Wes Hardaker
> USC/ISI
>
> _______________________________________________
> Architecture-discuss mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss
>