leader statements (was: Montevideo statement)

[Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]>]

Dear colleagues,

Once again, I'm speaking only for myself.  I think there is an
important matter here for the IETF community to think about,
particularly as the Nomcom is _right now_ seeking nominees for open
positions.  I want to be very careful to emphasise that I do not
intend to specify a preference for how things should go.  This is
because I am currently the IAB's liaison to the nomcom, and I
therefore think it's important to avoid expressing my personal
preferences in this case.  But I encourage people to talk to the
nomcom about their views on this general topic.  (Also, if you have
views about this, you might want to consider standing for an open IESG
or IAB position.)

So,

On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 10:00:39AM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
> this is a press release.  It would be naive at best to assume
> that its intended audience would look at it and say "Ah. A bunch
> of people with leadership roles in important Internet
> organizations happened to be in the same place and decided to
> make a statement in their individual capacities".  Not only does
> it not read that way, but there are conventions for delivering
> the "individual capacity" message, including prominent use of
> phrases like "for identification only". 

I don't think that "individual capacity" is what the identified people
were doing at that meeting.  They went to the meeting _as the chairs_
of the IAB and the IETF.  Therefore, it is quite appropriate that they
(but they alone) sign the statement in their capacity as chairs.  And
under those circumstances, I don't actually see what feedback about
the statement could be appropriate.  They did something, as
chairs. They make a statement, as chairs, about it.  Someone else's
thoughts about what the meeting should have been about are certainly
appropriate topics for discussion; but I don't see why those thoughts
should affect the contents of a statement about the actual meeting
that happened.

Now, there is indeed a possible issue, and that is that these chairs
were attending a "chief officer"-type meeting: there were CEOs and so
on, and (presumably by analogy) the chairs got invited to represent
the organizations of which they are chairs.  John is quite right that
people unfamiliar with the way the IETF or IAB work might interpret
the statement along the lines of, "The CEO of the IETF said that the
IETF subscribes to some view."  Normally, the leader of an
organization can direct that organization to some end; the Chair is
the leader; therefore, the Chair can direct the organization.  Of
course, that's not how we operate (this is, I think, at the bottom of
this very discussion).  But others might get that impression.

What I am not sure about is whether people are willing to accept the
chairs acting in that sort of "leader of organization" role.  If we do
accept it, then I think as a consequence some communications will
happen without consultation.  For a CEO is not going to agree to issue
a joint communiqué with someone who has to go negotiate the contents
of that communiqué (and negotiate those contents in public).  If we do
not accept it, then we must face the fact that there will be meetings
where the IETF or IAB just isn't in the room, because we'll have
instructed the chairs not to act in that capacity.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[e-mail]