Re: WG Review: Stay Home Meet Only Online (shmoo)

[Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]>]

Hi, SM,

On Tue, Jul 14, 2020, 17:52 S Moonesamy <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Alissa,
> At 06:22 AM 14-07-2020, Alissa Cooper wrote:
> >Suresh Krishnan, Russ Housley, and myself. See
> ><
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manycouches/Qls9UHKkG4kE9KKK4WQ-KBc0oLg/
> >.
> >
> > >
> > >  2. Who approved the draft charter?
> >
> >The IESG.
>
> I find it awkward to broach the following subject as you are an Area
> Director.  You may have noticed that I have zero support.
>

I'm only replying to these two sentences.

Area Directors are not nearly as exalted as this sounds. Like the rest of
Nomcom-reviewed position holders, Area Directors *serve the community*. If
we did an accurate org chart, the IESG (made up of ADs) would be toward the
BOTTOM of the "IETF hierarchy", and individual participants like you would
be at the top.

Fred Baker (1996-2001) said repeatedly, "I know I'm the IETF Chair, because
everyone sits on me". Five IETF Chairs later, that's still the way it
should be.

If we are doing the IETF correctly, the only thing that matters in a
discussion is the quality of a person's input. That's been clear to me
since the late 1990s, and if that is no longer true, the community needs to
have a broader conversation.

This is why ADs don't write all the documents :-)

I understand that this seems unnatural to many people - I am working for a
company from a culture where age and white hair are given deference, and I
have to remind younger colleagues that they are supposed to tell me when
I'm wrong, confused, or simply don't understand. Our success at that
company depends on hearing the best inputs from each person, and the IETF
is no different.

My current intern was delighted to discover that HE could give ME work
assignments. The IETF is like that.

As for "zero support", I wouldn't worry about that, at all. You're still
engaged in a conversation, and you can't know what other people are
thinking. You might eventually be "in the rough", or you might change our
minds for the better. But we're listening.

Please help us to "get it right", when you see something you need to ask
about.

Best,

Spencer

A person cannot be both judge and jury.  Within an IETF context, a
> person cannot be both the author and reviewer of a document; an Area
> Director cannot sponsor his/her own draft.  The reason is that it
> would create a conflict of interest.  In my opinion, writing the
> draft charter and approving it creates a potential conflict of interest.
>
> >There didn't seem to be any outstanding requests for changes to the
> >charter text that would prevent its approval.
>
> The definition of a charter is that it is a contract between a
> working group and the IETF to perform a set of tasks.  The milestones
> are part of the charter text.
>
> > >  4. Are the milestones listed at
> >
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manycouches/UB3zrC22s1B89PEwAOM-Y488TRs/
> > >     compliant with RFC 2418?
> >
> >Yes.
>
> I read RFC 2418 again.  It states that the basis for forming a
> working group is when the prospective Chair(s) and Area Director are
> satisfied with the charter form and content.  The RFC also states
> that milestones shall consist of deliverables that can be qualified
> as showing specific achievement.  A deliverable is a result.  In this
> case, it would be the result(s) produced by the working group, e.g.
> send draft to IESG by December 2020.  In my opinion, the milestones
> and the draft charter are not compliant with RFC 2418.
>
> It does not make sense to go ahead with the working group approval
> while the draft charter for that working group is under (formal)
> dispute.  It is as if the decision is/will be valid even though there
> is a dispute about that decision.
>
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy
>
>