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

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Mon, 08 December 2014 18:30 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E8121A8792 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Dec 2014 10:30:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 K2YqbnguEwm1 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Dec 2014 10:30:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wg0-x231.google.com (mail-wg0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::231]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 275A61A86F8 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Dec 2014 10:30:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wg0-f49.google.com with SMTP id n12so6892105wgh.36 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 08 Dec 2014 10:30:34 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=NymmBzTP4myxEBoH74xNx1nKxD1Aq5Ny+B8WSYYEqT0=; b=zTd4PgGP5AKHeaFJlPrl4oHuXRrNKt+6ADChRXLXjhhKZvNu6geDCu6Fc5hHfLMoKo B3DuDKHHaOsGPiIbdQxeNAcwrdIr6SUk3Dcvf8PGHottBwqtURwkwbMARk05fAzfreAp mrDT2IwhzEls86VCLRHX5T9Ityf9ovT2IOEw4tcPagVsRoQhO/jXlWX1izS63NwQpmt0 XoUYUncSZHq7TpKA/HYPclCRZEYJxPBbMfk2OfbfZuDc751yPwdfPKs6RSaw8mqnblDI Yuwhywjx2EliDdoPwtQYVxl4zRfRGuF7s1POreN3ujVnUbc0DlbWzstXE8W4O4/DPYt2 Vi4Q==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.211.201 with SMTP id ne9mr25657263wic.30.1418063433935; Mon, 08 Dec 2014 10:30:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.27.76.134 with HTTP; Mon, 8 Dec 2014 10:30:33 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <0c7901d00f12$f6790a60$e36b1f20$@olddog.co.uk>
References: <20140612132656.8100.57197.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAL0qLwZEo-AN4Er0gmbCyWJwTqOKBUKKMHEMQ_YqhK+oB+pcgg@mail.gmail.com> <547E9DBA.9040703@pi.nu> <0c1001d00ee9$36598670$a30c9350$@olddog.co.uk> <D51141636F7AC8CBFE11FA93@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <547F23AD.90206@gmail.com> <F1301BDF5BA91E9561C6654C@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <0c7901d00f12$f6790a60$e36b1f20$@olddog.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2014 10:30:33 -0800
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwa180=u8yV_o_yAAdUMiD38r=VMeSbLcVOEM-_PpV9Zug@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-secretaries-good-practices-06.txt> (IETF Working Groups' Secretaries) to Best Current Practice
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c266d63fb2f80509b89f60"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/dmYP6WJkssf851pXwPpSfQuR4DY
Cc: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 08 Dec 2014 18:30:37 -0000

Howdy Adrian,

On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 8:05 AM, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> wrote:

>
> 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.
>

Agree.


> - The use of a WG secretary somewhat reflects an abdication of
>   responsibility by a WG chair who was appointed to carry out these tasks.
>

I think that's a bit more than what I was saying, at least.  Some WGs
become unwieldy because they end up taking on more documents or more people
than they had anticipated, or a co-chair's expected availability becomes
compromised.  In some cases it's appropriate to replace such a co-chair
with someone else that can handle the demand, and in others a WG secretary
might be all that's needed.  It's possible to delegate without abdicating,
where the delegated authority is merely to, for example, collect
information needed for the co-chair to make a decision; the co-chair
accepts responsibility for the collection and has the opportunity to verify
the input, even if she isn't the one actually doing the collection.

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.
>

I think the answer to the question there is not only "yes", but that's
exactly what's expected if the chair exercises her prerogative to appoint a
secretary.  The proverbial "buck" still stops in the same place.  If that's
not written down, it ought to be.   (And yes, I'll offer to edit such a
document, though probably not until the new year.)

-MSK