Re: Quality Control and that nasty A word (was: Re: [mpowr] Re: [Solutions] Further work on WG (chair) roles - MPOWR WG proposal)

[Pete Resnick <[e-mail]>]

On 12/16/03 at 8:28 AM -0800, James Kempf wrote:

>So doesn't the fact that the IESG can say "no" make it a hierarchy?

No, it doesn't. For example:

>I fail to see any difference in the immediate situation between an 
>Area Director returning a document to a working group after AD 
>Review and saying "fix this or I'm not going to submit it to the 
>IESG" and a division director saying "fix these bugs or I'm not 
>going to release the software".

Because the development team can't appeal the division director's 
decision, and the development team members cannot initiate the 
process to fire the division director. And moreover, the development 
team cannot decide (with the rest of the departments) to restructure 
the corporation and get rid of the division director.

Also, the division director is under no obligation to negotiate with 
the development team if the development team disagrees with the 
division director. The division director has no responsibility to try 
to resolve disputes, even if it is a nice thing to do.

>Of course, there are differences in accountability. The division 
>director is only accountable to his VP while the AD is accountable 
>to the community. As I've said in other emails, *that* means that 
>should WG chairs be given more - it you don't like the word 
>"authority" call it something else, maybe "X stuff" - then there 
>needs to be a similar accountability mechanism for them.
[emphasis added]

First of all, *what* means that chairs should be given more 
authority? I don't see how that follows from anything you've said. 
(And I *do* think we're talking about authority here; no need to call 
it "X stuff".)

Second of all, accountability is *not* the only difference between 
the division director and the AD; the entire set of responsibilities 
is similarly different.

>No sane person is going to take the responsibility to do something 
>without the authority to get it done.

You've said that twice now and I'm still at a loss to know what 
you're talking about. It sounds like a catch phrase. What 
responsibility have we given (or do we want to give) to an AD or to a 
WG chair for which we haven't given them the authority to get it 
done? An AD has the responsibility to review documents coming out of 
working groups. Chairs have the responsibility to make sure that 
consensus is reached on all open document issues. We're talking about 
giving chairs the responsibility to collect technical reviews early 
in the process and to do a technical writeup at the end of the 
process. Yes, for all of these responsibilities, the ADs and chairs 
should know that the community has the authority to overrule them. 
But how does that equate to not having the authority to get those 
things done? Does the prospect of appeal or recall prevent ADs from 
pushing back on WGs? Does the prospect of appeal or recall prevent a 
chair from invoking 2026 to say, "Let's try to bring this set of open 
issues from the review to consensus"?

>One argument some have made against giving the WG chairs more X 
>stuff is that we don't get very good people as WG chairs.

Straw man. I've certainly never said that.

>If they aren't given the X stuff to match their responsibility, 
>we'll get even worse.

So effectively you're saying that power is the only reward for which 
good chairs will work. I've not found that to be the case.

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]

_______________________________________________
mpowr mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr