Re: [Icar] independence of reviews; variability

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

So, now some comments and questions:


DC> hta: if you want to create a body with power and responsibility
DC> outside the IETF management structure with power and responsibility,
DC> be careful what you ask for

The caution is warranted. When organizing power centers, be very
careful. And fully centralized power is particularly subject to
problems, particularly for groups with highly diverse, volunteer
participation, like the IETF.

In fact, the history of the IETF has tended towards particularly
DE-centralized activities. This is exactly what has changed over recent
years and could reasonably be interpreted as one of the sources of
current problems. Note, for example, that the effort to exert arbitrary,
centralized power was what triggered the 1992 Kobe situation.

The real work of the organization is initiated by, and performed by,
self-motivated volunteers. At base, this is a grass-roots organization.
Highly centralized control works against a grass-roots sense of
empowerment and responsibility. (Lest one think this means that there
does not need to be coordination and quality control, it doesn't.)

Reviews are supposed to be technical analyses, rather than sources of
design recommendations. The latter always get added, because anyone good
enough to be a reviewer will also have thoughts on how to improve the
thing being reviewed. But the core benefit of a review is the
independent perspective on how well or poorly the thing being reviewed
will work.


DC> hta: if review is to make any sense, it has to influence the quality,
DC> relevance, timeliness of ourput. the managemt exists to influence the
DC> quality, relevance, timeliness of ietf output

The fact that this activity is being translated into a question of power
challenges the basic credibility of these volunteer contributions, since
it suggests that the reviewers need to be controlled. This is at odds
with the IETF's history of collaboration rather than of leverage through
power. Such a requirement deprives reviews of the independence needed to
ensure the essential variability of perspective that a reviews are
supposed to have.

If we view the IESG as "being in charge" of the IETF and really being
the "authority" for IETF decisions, then perhaps is it is useful to give
the IESG control over qualification and selection of reviewers.

If, instead, we view the IETF as being a collaborative organization that
seeks to build broad-based support for its decisions -- with the IESG
coordinating and assessing that support -- then we need to be organized
and operated in a way that encourages the diversity and independence
that make claims of broad-based support credible.

d/
--
 Dave Crocker <dcrocker-at-brandenburg-dot-com>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <www.brandenburg.com>
 Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:[phone]>


_______________________________________________
Icar mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar