Re: [mpowr] Re: [Solutions] Further work on WG (chair) roles - MPOWRWG proposal

[Alex Conta <[e-mail]>]

Please see inline

[e-mail] wrote:

> Hi John,
> 
> I find that I must respectfully disagree with you.
> 
> 
>>* While it may be difficult to do so, it is ultimately more
>>reasonable to judge _IETF_ consensus on a procedural issue by
>> [...]
> 
> We get, by far, the highest number of respondents when we
> conduct polls at the plenaries, and perhaps those polls are
> our best way to judge "IETF consensus".  However, they select
> for people who can afford to attend the meetings, and they are
> usually limited to simple (yes/no) questions.
> 

The polls may in fact hide a superficial knowledge of the topic, and may 
reflect an immediate reaction to the eloquence, or wit of the person 
conducting the poll. Which is why polls in the plenary are not always 
the best indication.

>> [...]
>>Just
>>make an announcement about what you are expecting WG Chairs to
>>do and that you will rubber-stamp that action, without delay,
>>when it gets to you as AD. 
> 
> Some of this is already being done.
> 
> It isn't clear that individual ADs can run all of the experiments
> that we'd like to see run.  
> 
> For instance, I'd like WG chairs to have the authority to temporarily 
> suspend the posting privileges of disruptive mailing list participants, 
> but that isn't something I can "just do", since it is not within my 
> perogative to approve the suspension -- the whole IESG needs to approve 
> it. 
> 

This is extermely dangerous, and am against it!

Poeple that make just noise are ignored anyway, and do not need 
suspension of privileges.

Giving such a privilege to chairs is just creating even a better 
dictatorial environment than the one existing today, and a way to ensure 
that mailing list will be 100% chair-friendly. Expect then to see some 
mailing list called 'free-X WG', or 'free-IETF' !

>[...]
> 
>>(2) The other major concern that has been voiced involves WG
>>Chairs abusing their (possibly new-found) power. 

Chairs already have a lot of power, exacerbated by the right
to participate directly to the output of the chaired WG. Which
gives the easy key to progress in the WG: "have the chair as a
co-author of your spec".

Such a right does not exist in any of the other major SDOs I am familair
with.

>> But WG Chairs
>>serve more or less at the pleasure of ADs.  

This is a disturbing acknowledgment of a BIG problem, since it goes two 
ways - both that the ADs can fire a WG chair at will, and that the ADs 
can choose and keep a WG chair as long as they want.

>> An abuse can be
>>discussed with the relevant AD (the procedures are pretty clear
>>about that).  If the AD refuses to do anything, that situation
>>can be appealed (that is less clear from the procedures, but,
>>IMO, it would be completely rational for the community to
>>consider recalling any AD who said "my nit-picking reading of
>>the procedures doesn't permit an appeal in this case, so I vote
>>to reject it without considering the issues").
> 
> 
> I more-or-less agree that this should be sufficient chain of
> accountability, 

So you yourself are not 100% sure about the chain. The problem is that 
the check and balances is fragile - to be mild - and too many times not 
working as it is. More power to the WG chairs, is going to further 
exacerbate an existing reality - the friends of the WG chairs have a 
better chance to succeed in a WG.

The check and balances mechanism need major changes or major 
reinforcement, before any more power being given to the WG chairs.

> but unfortunately there are some well-respected 
> and outspoken members of the community who do not agree. 

Luckily.

>  So,
> we need to do some more work before we can any reach consensus in
> this area.
>  

Maybe you just suspend the posting rights to the outspoken ones...


> 
>>If, once we have the output from this type of experimental
>>process, we conclude that the relevant BCPs need rewriting (as I
>>suspect we will), that is the right time to form WGs, if needed.
>>They will, at that point, have firm experience behind them to
>>evaluate.   But, right now, I think the criterion for forming
>>more WGs ought to be "there is evidence that we need to do X,
>>and we can't even try that without a change in procedures".
> 
> 
> I think that there is evidence that we need to give WG Chairs more
> authority to control WG mailing lists. 

Cenzorship made it easy. NOoooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

 >  I also think that we want
> to give WG chairs the authority to hold the WG to a set of internal
> WG processes that may include criteria for accpetance at various
> stages and/or certain amounts of cross-area or expert review.
> 

There is enough room for wrong doing right now, that would just make 
more room.

> [...] it
> would be nice if our BCPs were less ambiguous about the responsibility 
> and authority of WG chairs.
> 

I certainly agree with that.

Alex

> Margaret
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Solutions mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://eikenes.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/solutions
> 
>