Re: [Manycouches] Francesca Palombini's Discuss on draft-ietf-shmoo-remote-fee-05: (with DISCUSS)

[Jay Daley <[e-mail]>]

> On 6 Mar 2023, at 10:48, Mirja Kuehlewind <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi John,
> 
> I don’t think any principles we set up as a community are just recommendations but in the end they can be binding if they’re e.g. financially not viable.
> 
> This is what RFC8711 says:
> 
> It is the job of the
>    IETF LLC to meet the administrative needs of the IETF and to ensure
>    that the IETF LLC meets the needs of the IETF community.
> 
> Responsiveness to the community.  The IETF LLC is expected to act
>       consistently with the documented consensus of the IETF community,
>       to be responsive to the community's needs, and to adapt its
>       decisions in response to consensus-based community feedback.
> 
> The role of the Board is to ensure that the strategy and conduct of
>    the IETF LLC is consistent with the IETF's needs -- both its concrete
>    needs and its needs for transparency and accountability.  The Board
>    is not intended to directly define the IETF's needs; to the extent
>    that is required, the IETF community should document its needs in
>    consensus-based RFCs (e.g., as the community did in [RFC8718]) and
>    provide more detailed input via consultations with the Board (such as
>    takes place on email discussion lists or at IETF meetings).
> 
> So yes The LLC is not tightly bind by the community consensus but I would say they have a commitment to follow it. Especially if there is a conflict where financial concerns limit community needs, I would expect the LLC to consult with the community, as RFC8711 also says:
> 
> Transparency.  The IETF LLC is expected to keep the IETF community
>       informed about its work, subject to reasonable confidentiality
>       concerns, and to engage with the community to obtain consensus-
>       based community input on key issues and otherwise as needed.
> 
> To give a different example, I believe current community guidance is that we want to hold 3 meetings with an in-person component a year. If we can't effort those meetings financially anymore, I wouldn’t expect that the LLC just decides to cancel a meeting without consultation with the IESG and probably also the rest of the community.
> 
> Again, it anything here is not clear (which I don’t think) that is an issue for RFC8711 and not the meeting fee draft.
> 
> Also I think the original question was more if the should give the LLC more detailed guidance in what to do if they detect a problem (probably because of misuse). However, I don’t think we have consensus on what the right guidance is and I think that's because without knowing exactly what the problem is, it is also hard to give the right guidance. So I simply think RFC8711 applies here as well: if the LLC detects a problem they should consult with the community. Leaving the document on the principle level without details guidance, means also we can react appropriate if we detect a problem without having to change the RFC. I think that also a problem we had too often in the past and being careful to not go to deeply into implementation details of such a principle document seems to be the right approach.

Noting my obvious conflict of interest here, I fully agree.  I would be quite happy if the document was clear that any issue around misuse, including investigation, identification and remedial action, is a matter for the community.

Jay

> 
> Mirja
> 
> 
> 
>> On 3. Mar 2023, at 22:55, John C Klensin <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --On Friday, March 3, 2023 22:33 +0100 Mirja Kuehlewind
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On 2. Mar 2023, at 14:29, John C Klensin <[e-mail]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> My personal guess is that FOO would turn out to be that this
>>>> is ultimately a financial matter on which the LLC makes the
>>>> final decisions as it always does and, while the community
>>>> should be consulted, any IETF opinions are ultimately just
>>>> advisory.  But, if that is the reality, then why not just say
>>>> it and move on?
>>> 
>>> Because this is the wrong document to say it. This is true for
>>> any principle and I think that's what I would already read
>>> in rfc8711. I tried to explain that in the PR: RFC8711 has the
>>> last word here. If that is not clear in RFC8711, we need to
>>> update RFC8711 but not codify these kind of things in this
>>> document.
>> 
>> Mirja,
>> 
>> I have not studied the PR but, if you say there that any
>> recommendations in this document are ultimately just advice and
>> subject to RFC 8711, I'm happy (or at least satisfied that
>> reality is being properly reflected).  
>> 
>> I think that is necessary precisely because I don't think even
>> RFC 8711, the LLC bylaws and organizing documents, or almost
>> anything equivalent to them, says that "any principle" is just
>> advice to the LLC.  Any principle of some particular types may
>> be and, in particular, it is not clear on what matters the IETF
>> can actually give the LLC instructions.  That boundary still
>> seems fuzzy.  That is probably a conversation best left to
>> another time and certainly should not hold up this document.
>> 
>> thanks,
>>   john
>> 
>> 
> 

-- 
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director
[e-mail]