Re: "Management team"

[Jay Daley <[e-mail]>]

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

> On 20/04/2020, at 12:10 PM, John C Klensin <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 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
> 

-- 
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director
[e-mail]