Re: [mpowr] Re: process-only participation in WG [Troops vs superpower]

[Alex Conta <[e-mail]>]

James,

James Kempf wrote:

> Alex,
> 
> One possible issue with your proposal, which I think Pekka is trying to get
> at (please correct me if I am wrong) is that up until now, IETF WG chairs
> have primarily been technical people, engineers who are very involved in
> developing the technology.

I think I understood Pekka's message. Chairs being technical people does 
not have to change, nor involvement in developing the technology. Some 
aspects of involvement would follow more strictly rules that in fact 
already exist.

> If the role of a WG chair is changed to be purely
> administrative,
>  we may get an increase of "standards people" who don't do
> much technical work but who are primarily there because their employers fund
> them to contribute to standards administration, and who don't really have
> much interest in the technology. 

At the size and number of companies of the IETF meetings attendance 
nowadays, and the number of other SDOs that IETF members attend, there 
is a very significant skill diversity already.

> Perhaps this is an inevitable consequence
> of the growth of IETF, but it will certainly change the character of the
> organization in a direction which I think many in IETF would not be
> comfortable with. 

You're absolutely right - the growth of the IETF has an impact. The 
aspiration to maintain a position of a major international open 
standards organization cannot be fulfilled without following some basic 
rules used in standardization.

I believe some of discomfort comes from the misunderstanding of open 
standardization, by confusing i)leading a technical project in a 
company, with ii) chairing a technical standardization WG in IETF.

In developing a proprietary technology in a company, the field is 
narrowed by a commonality of interests, and rewards. Consequently, a 
technical leader can do anything, from managing his group, to being the 
architect, to writing, and reviewing specs.

Standardization has some radical differences.  An important one is that 
work is being done by many people/companies of diverse, and/or 
conflicting, and/or competing, backgrounds, interests, and ideas. The 
importance of impartiality and equal access is proportional with the 
number of people, and their diversity.   Another different aspect is the 
reward - being a document author is the immediate personal reward, in 
which impartiality and equal access are important.

 > That said, I believe that some changes are needed to
> ensure more impartiality during WG discussion and consensus calls.
> 
>             jak
> 

Definitely,
Alex


>>
>>
>>>On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Alex Conta wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>You say you've been told "IETF does not have enough folks willing to do
>>>>process management only, without the technical work".
>>>>
>>>>I believe that.
>>>>
>>>>But a separation of process management from technical work, in case of N
>>>>WGs in IETF, will allow X to chair WG A, and do technical work in as
>>>>many WGs as X wants except A, which is N-1 WGs.
>>>>
>>>>So I do not see why you stopped?  Individual X can do both process
>>>>management and technical work.
>>>
>>>[...]
>>>You assume that capable individuals are willing to do process
>>>management in those WGs which they're not interested of (because, if
>>>they were, they would be participating to the WG making them uncapable
>>>to act as WG chair).
>>>
>>
>>I am not sure what you assume by "capable". People in IETF may have good
>>technical capabilities, good people and process capabilities, or all of
>>them.
>>
>>Assuming the latter, the reality is that there are so many relationships
>>between WGs, or between areas in IETF. You yourself probably follow and
>>contribute one way or another to several WGs, based on your personal
>>interest. Chairing one of these WG, would just imply that you would not
>>be a document editor, for instance, prior or during chairing that group.
>>By the way this is a rule that exist today.
>>
>>On the other hand, I think it is quite possible that a "process, and
>>people" capable person to find it very interesting to chair  a WG, in
>>which it has no technical interest.
>>
>>
>>>That is a huge assumption in the real world.  Chairing is a lot of
>>>work.
>>>
>>
>>Indeed chairing is a lot of work, and a lot of responsibility. I mean
>>here process and people managament work. But chairs combine today this
>>work, with too many technical roles: technical leader, architect,
>>editor, reviewer, etc...  in the same WG. This is bad, because it is one
>>of the reasons some WGs are so purely managed - too many - and IETF has
>>timely delivery problems, and other problems as well.
>>
>>Furthermore, the time when IETF was a couple of tens, or hundreds of
>>people has long passed.  IETF is nolonger a "small business", where X is
>>50% of the employees, and is performing %50 of the jobs ... It is a
>>prestigious international open standards organization, well attended,
>>whith a lot of work to do, and a lot of responability on its own
>>sholders, including the creation of an environment of fairness, which is
>>essential for developing standards.
>>
>>The average attendance in the last 5 years or so was way above 1000, in
>>some cases going well over 2000. There is a large pool of people willing
>>and able to do the technical work, and there is a considerable pool of
>>people willing and able to do chairing WGs. People working in this
>>industry make choices for a managerial path, or technical path in their
>>companies. They make that choice in other major SDOs, and they can do
>>that in IETF as well.
>>
>>
>> > Why would I (or someone else) want to waste time on something
>> > that I don't even find interesting, while I could use the same time to
>> > contribute technically in other WGs?
>>
>>Back to your question, I will answer with a question:
>>
>>Do you mean that you would accept to be a WG chair, only if you can be
>>the technical leader, the architect, the editor, and the reviewer of the
> 
> WG?
> 
>>Alex
>>
> 
> 
> 
>