RE: Last Call: <draft-secretaries-good-practices-06.txt> (IETF Working Groups' Secretaries) to Best Current Practice

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

John,

I placed the document on the IESG telechat after a period of silence that
followed the publication of the -07 version of the document and an email
summarising the changes from the editor.

At the same time I sent an additional note to this list. I don't know (or care)
whether that is what triggered renewed conversations, but I welcome them. I
don't think you should take such a negative tone and assume that the no-one
wants to listen to your concerns. Let's see whether we can address them before
the telechat in just over two weeks' time.

I believe I see two issues raised by you and Melinda in this thread which I may
summarise as:
- This I-D needs to be clearer that it is not normative, not defining process, 
   and not directing WG chairs to use secretaries.
- The use of a WG secretary somewhat reflects an abdication of
  responsibility by a WG chair who was appointed to carry out these tasks.

Now, I think the first of these might be something we can address with some
careful text in the Abstract and Introduction. Would you agree? If so, I' m sure
we can work something out.

The second is more of a philosophical question. The chair is "contracted" to
deliver and given certain powers to achieve delivery. Can the chair delegate the
actions while supervising their implementation and carrying responsibility for
their correctness? This is maybe an issue we can address by making it clear who
carries responsibility  for actions carried out by a WG secretary and what the
complaint/appeals path is. 

But I would note for the second of these points that the WG secretary role
exists and there is also the concept of a "delegate". These ways of handling
IETF work are not introduced or made concrete by this document. We can't,
therefore, hold this document to account for the existence of things we don't
like. We can only ensure that the document accurately describes what exists.

Regards,
Adrian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of John C Klensin
> Sent: 03 December 2014 15:26
> To: Melinda Shore; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-secretaries-good-practices-06.txt> (IETF
Working
> Groups' Secretaries) to Best Current Practice
> 
> 
> 
> --On Wednesday, December 03, 2014 05:52 -0900 Melinda Shore
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> > I'd like to echo what John said.  I'm somewhat concerned that
> > the growth of the wg secretary role has something to do with
> > an inability (or unwillingness) to deal directly with poor
> > chair performance.  Individual chairs may prefer to have the
> > assistance but I am truly sorry to see this becoming typical
> > working group practice.  "All problems can be solved by
> > introducing a layer of indirection" may be a slightly
> > entertaining joke about programming practice but it seems a
> > woeful approach to organizational problems.
> 
> Melinda,
> 
> Well put and thanks for getting to the core of the problem.   I
> actually like having WG Secretaries for a few reasons that are
> separate from the above (and largely separate from the
> discussion in the document).  Used well, under the right
> circumstances, and with appropriate care, the WG Secretary role
> may be a good leadership development activity -- under some
> circumstances, far more appropriate than appointing a junior or
> inexperienced person as a co-chair who really shouldn't be
> considered accountable for WG performance.
> 
> For those who like structure and titles, perhaps we should
> formally create an "Assistant Chair" or "Apprentice Chair" role,
> give it a fancy title that would look good on CVs and to
> corporate folks working on travel budgets, and downplay
> "Secretary".  I hope I'm joking.
> 
> But, again, use of "WG Secretary" for leadership development is
> an argument for flexibility with the title and role, not a
> document that appears to suggest that all good WGs should have
> secretaries and that good secretaries should do some particular
> list of things.
> 
> That is the last from me on this topic, especially since the
> tracker says "(Has enough positions to pass.)".   If true, that
> leaves the appeals process (on the grounds that these issues
> have been raised before, going back at least to August, and
> never seriously addressed) and/or a discussion with the Nomcom
> (on the grounds that the IESG is exercising bad judgment by
> regularly putting these "more rules and more structure"
> proposals in front of the community and the Nomcom is the only
> realistic remedy for collective IESG bad judgment).
> 
>    john