Re: New proposal/New SOW comment period

[Sarah Banks <[e-mail]>]

Hi John,
	Please see inline.

<snip>

>> 
> 
>> Speaking for myself, I do not think the SOW as written by Mike
>> holds true for me. You can't beat up the IAB and RSOC for
>> steering the process in some (potential) nefarious way, then
>> effectively do the exact same and ask the community to bless
>> it in the week left of a comment period. The community did not
>> agree at the mic about what to do, or even what we disagreed
>> on as a whole, and so the IAB outlined a plan for giving the
>> community time to do it's thing, but keep docs flowing is
>> something I believe firmly in. With my own community hat on, I
>> WANT that. IMO we clearly need that. And while I haven't yet
>> shared my opinions on what should happen next, cramming it
>> into a weeks review of the SOW is wrong. Sorry. It's very
>> important to me that we agree, or get rough consensus called,
>> and I just don't see how that can happen in a week. I'd argue
>> it already hasn't. We've had a few folks +1 Mike's SOW, but
>> that's hardly indicative of the community as a whole. 
> 
> Others have commented about part of this.   Your line of
> reasoning above essentially makes a call for community comments
> useless because someone (or a committee, board, or other group)
> can always say "we made a proposal, there wasn't very clear and
> obvious support for something else, and therefore we are going
> with our proposal".  A few years ago I would have argued this
> was unnecessary, but it may be time that the IETF considers a
> rule that, if a proposal originates with a given body, that body
> is not allowed to be the determiner of consensus on that
> proposal or alternatives to it.
> 

Erm? I don't see what your comment has to do with Mike's line of reasoning, or mine, which you're calling out. Let me be clear. I object to Mike shoehorning in how he wants the world to work into an SOW that was meant to cover the tactical. You can jump up and down all day long about how the process is being run (that we want to have someone temporarily run the tactical show while the community decides what it wants) but given that's how the RSOC was marching, I cannot support shoving what you want into an SOW. We'd either end up with dozens of SOWs written by numerous people articulating what they want (and then how does any reader wrangle that?) or you short cut the process, which might not be Mike's intent, but I don't appreciate. We clearly articulated the approach, which isn't coming at the tail end of some process - it was discussed on stage at the plenary of IETF105, and is loosely based on what Heather herself proposed. 



> Equally important and reinforced by experience in the last few
> weeks, we end up with late review --not only in the last week
> but even after the Last Call on a document ends-- and, however
> inconvenient that is, we consider them on their merits rather
> than discarding them because someone didn't make them early
> enough.  Even later, IESG members can (and often do) show up
> with comments within the 24 hours (or much later) before a
> telechat and require that the issues raised be considered.  So,
> as a community, we do what you suggest is unreasonable and do it
> all the time.
> 

OK... we knew the SOW was coming, and it covers exactly what was proposed on stage. Frankly, you're making my point for NOT supporting Mike's SOW as written - in my mind, it's 2 pieces. First, how he wants to see the RSE role to fit into the org, and then the actual components of the role (albeit pared down). Even more reason to NOT approve something huge like this in a <n> week comment period without the preceding discussion. So I return back to my original comment, that the RSOC is trucking to the process as previously outlined in email and explicitly NOT shortcutting the process or truncating how/when the community can weigh in.

> I recognize that we are in a bit of a crisis here and that you
> need to keep the documents flowing.  But I'm not sure that is
> much different from a technical specification on whose approval
> organizations and other work are depending getting held up
> because of late comments from the community and the IESG.  And
> messing this up in a way that reduces the quality of the
> documents coming out of that flow wouldn't be wise either.
> Remember that the RSOC and IAB do have a choice in this: the
> main thing that really requires critical leadership in the next
> few months is the transition to v3.  It would be sad to put that
> process on hold, but probably sadder to mess it up for the long
> term by putting people and a structure in place that cannot make
> competent long-term decisions the community will be comfortable
> with.  I'm not suggesting doing that; I'm only suggesting that
> the RSOC and IAB should not pretend it is not an option.
> 

OK... I see no reason to put the v3 format work on hold though. Why should it wait while we figure out what we want to evolve the RSE role to? We aren't pretending it's not an option; we're saying it's not the option we're proposing.

>> ...
> Because I've been attacked recently for writing notes that are
> too long, I'm just going to stop here rather than addressing the
> rest of your comments on my comments.  I do want to point out
> one thing that I think others have said as well -- the SOW (the
> RSOC's, Mike's, or a different one) and whatever process follows
> it had best find someone with sufficient knowledge, and
> knowledge-based opinions, to be able to do the job.  Otherwise,
> the decisions that need to be made on a day-to-day basis are
> just not going to happen (at least consistently) unless they are
> actually made by the RSOC or IAB by micromanaging.  But, if you
> get someone with that level of knowledge and the community
> discussions lead to the conclusion that the job description and,
> hence the person appointed, were wrong, you would be headed into
> a management mess of very severe proportions with a high risk of
> the appointee working in perfectly good faith but in a direction
> to which the community is opposed.   So I know you are in a
> hurry and I understand and sympathize with the reasons, but I'm
> not sure that justifies the kind of haste that could lead to an
> even worse situation.
> 

FWIW, the RSOC and IAB haven't been micromanaging this in the past, and while I may not be on the RSOC forever, I'd hope we'd never see that happening. No one likes being micromanaged, despite the need for managing. We may want the best of the best, we may not get what we wanted, but I have to assume we'll hire the best we can, and if we can 't find someone who's acceptable in the role, we'll have to circle back to the IETF and let them know that, when we get there.


Thanks
Sarah