Re: "Management team"

George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org> Mon, 20 April 2020 00:16 UTC

Return-Path: <ggm@algebras.org>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D59CE3A0A46 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Apr 2020 17:16:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=algebras-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rkwC5aOm1LWG for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Apr 2020 17:16:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd2e.google.com (mail-io1-xd2e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B27393A0A16 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 Apr 2020 17:16:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd2e.google.com with SMTP id e9so1506249iok.9 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 Apr 2020 17:16:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=algebras-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=X5G9jov7dAN28hiSNZsuDwGyfAC66+Ux3ybPXh/meyI=; b=wkZVCZdHNLaKJ5NPgo/CVPAui+wQmkG0aYmZwkSCgQVOjomzNzGBjNDkz3YGv5QsX2 7NbnYywhZ3HNdyxbXT7lpFY1K7SCfobC/SZLSD1trzSy816B3SHT8IZy/QYxuAuQSr0l OzEIyDlEuk6MeCDkNetiLnlAurLD28uxe18526Gp7kpX6BBsk3RV9j952ka6ny7eiC6N IelWZlE/X1WsKhB+204DBK5FvQHvTPXI7YvIH368d/R8ovwh6fiV4jTMoUQsQHE4gAnX MYHR1ePh9fJQ+HsMbPP6VAaUFTt6ig5Wufij2krpHojrykvoFXiWDAbXE55Wvo8OXWMw Lj0w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=X5G9jov7dAN28hiSNZsuDwGyfAC66+Ux3ybPXh/meyI=; b=WXT6iITR7vdx9Xz0miItJkpqy1aXSR+be52hycHEiWwHr8PksX0yJ7p50lT2VS3IwP MgGln2yPhZ3sgn6YhfQwIjr743ctGmk8OTwnvNGLlob6ZoFub7xCX1BYAnc/TLqZMWDU 81mrqqcqB8ocRhOP/Jb466uaG/Axcqfzl+VqVZLTplCq7Pbj89ou1qkT/li7RvbLroJg /qqh2wu/1eO1tGGTWpYYEgY1OpyHsJ1M/4c3AfEiDigPkCtSDCp3esokp5lkqe5rtyBx meoEKnZ3AdzztVnhKwVaOxP1d8KQiYYQe9lYYAc0lTspG9s9jaivLgeuGXnVvj2fCqQU E3Zw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0Pua2MZRPtGj0vhznQxq4fD8kp9HBPU4yVoq2DN5CmmJpTPHD2Qtd evidV+NE/kyt6Xt77nxZ32Q5VhJtDt6vsnZDbSUWpwiY
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypIxOFO4eD7+sqPZiBaV2uSQ6Os1+cYnuvGSmPvbSdb0wMOEQ2RwtHhBXS0yUKXhYTXejvQRBDRIUE5qxhDeFBY=
X-Received: by 2002:a02:c725:: with SMTP id h5mr13138421jao.13.1587341775477; Sun, 19 Apr 2020 17:16:15 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <47A0EEE1BBB8EF41FD8B07E0@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <47A0EEE1BBB8EF41FD8B07E0@PSB>
From: George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2020 10:16:04 +1000
Message-ID: <CAKr6gn0DJqDb8oi7XcmG6dJ6wNwaVC=AyHMhWO5QgUy++Od6Zw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: "Management team"
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Cc: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/S4fA747fh1pctWQqZrYXLXJ4Jq4>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2020 00:16:21 -0000

On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 10:11 AM John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:
> 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.

You aren't the only person concerned about the *assumption* behind a
shift in the operating model.

I think this is an entirely plausible position to be in, but we should
have some sense of consensus to continue or a sense of structured
limits on this situation.

I personally think the instantiation of a legal entity changed things,
because some people now have statutory obligations in law by virtue of
a role in a structural entity which exists and incurs obligations.

But the principle stands: It's not that we need to take all decisions
all the time by consensus, but a decision to change operating model
like this for these decisions, needs to be consented to (I think)

I also want to say I do not believe anyone (Jay for instance) is
acting in "bad faith" here.  But we're breaking the model: We should
talk about that.