[mpowr] Re: Quality Control and that nasty A word

[Alex Conta <[e-mail]>]

Please see incline:

James Kempf wrote:

>>>As mentioned earlier, new proposed WG charters are starting to have
> 
> quality
> 
>>>assurance plans. Suppose the IESG were to require that a charter contain
> 
> a
> 
>>>QA plan before the charter is approved. Thus, the WG is taking
>>>responsibility for quality by proposing the QA plan, the IESG is judging
>>>whether the plan is likely to succeed (from their presumably broader
>>>experience) by approving the charter or suggesting changes, and the
> 
> chair
> 
>>>has the responsibility for carrying the QA plan out, with the authority
>>>(relevance, etc.) granted to him/her by the WG through the charter.
>>
>>As long as the chair can be also a developer, this process is
>>fundamentally weak, and prone to play just as a tool for promoting
>>the chair's, and chairs friends' work.
>>
> 
> 
> Sorry, Alex, but I don't understand what this has to do with figuring out a
> mechanism whereby QA can be effective, while, at the same time, reducing
> IESG workload and ensuring that the responsibility for QA rests with the WG.
> 

Making the QA the responasbility of the WG is a good thing. But QA 
should not be only the task of the WG, since I do not think QA will be 
effective if it is solely a mechanism at WG level.

Reducing the IESG load can be achieved by other means than just shifting 
load to the WG chairs. Personally I would prefer shifting the load to a 
body of people that are elected (nomcom) as opposed to selected by ADs. 
Something like the IESG - perhaps IAB, or a somewhat similar group.

If I didn't say that already, power of decision on QA should be 
collective, and impartial. To ensure impartiality from start, decision 
people should meet certain criteria.

>>>[...]
>>>Would this satisfy your concerns?
>>>
>>>                jak
>>
>>Not mine. Sorry for jumping in.
>>
> 
> 
> Could you explain a little more? What exactly do you mean by the chair being
> a "developer"? If you read Margaret's draft (which I presume you did, since
> you're commenting on this thread) then you know that she has proposed that
> chairs are no longer allowed to be authors or editors of drafts, except for
> a limited period during which they are in transition between one role and
> another. So, if that's what you mean by being a "developer", that particular
> concern would be covered if that part of Margaret's draft is instituted. As
> for the chair's friends, it is up to the IESG to pick someone who can
> abstract themselves from purely partisan concerns and act as a moderator in
> the tussles that inevitably arise during standardization. If the chair does
> not fufill that role, then it is the responsibility of the WG to appeal to
> the AD to remove the chair.
> 

As documents on the standards track are "alive" pretty much as long as 
the WG is alive, any involvement with output of the WG should be a 
disqualifing criterium for a WG chair, regardless of the amount of power 
- current level, or increased level of power. This is practice in many 
SDOs, and would resolve a problem in IETF that exists currently, even 
without giving the chairs more power.

Additional checks and balances mechanims can be looked at - time limits 
on serving as chairs, performance reports after each IETF meeting - 
could be part of the "blue sheet", etc...

regards,
Alex

> Perhaps there needs to be a statement to this effect in 2026bis?
> 
>             jak
> 
> 
>