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

[[e-mail]]

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
> surveying comments on a wide-participation list than it is to
> judge it from a narrowly-constituted WG

AFAIK, we don't have any effective mechanism to reach a large
percentage of the IETF population that doesn't select for some
specific group.

Any WG activity and/or process-specific mailing list (such as
poised, solutions, problem...) will select for people who have
the time and inclination to work on process-oriented activities.
However, they do allow everyone who is interested in those
discussions to participate.

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.

We do not get a strong enough response to any IETF Last Calls
to believe that they reach a large representative sampling of
the IETF population.

> * Any decisions coming out of the WG will be subject to IESG
> approval.  If the IESG does not approve, then the WG becomes a
> waste of time.  If the IESG knows of things of which it will
> approve, then, if it believes there is some basis in community
> consensus, it is free to make the changes today.  That leaves a
> (probably very small, IMO) area in which the IESG possibly
> prefers to not do something, but might be persuaded by a large
> community consensus.  But, again, a narrow-focus WG is not the
> best was to demonstrate such consensus.

This assumes that the IESG already knows every possibility for
improving the IETF, and can pre-judge everything that might come
out of such a WG.  Personally, I trust the community to come up
with some good ideas that I would not come up with on my own.

The IESG does not have perfect knowledge of the IETF, nor do
we encompass the perspectives of all participants.  So, I believe
that wider community involvement in improving the IETF is needed,
not just community review, at an IETF Last Call level, of 
IESG-developed plans.

> * As Pete and others have pointed out, most of the things that a
> WG might decide to permit or require under this proposed charter
> are already within the scope of authority of a WG Chair ...
> assuming that the relevant AD decides to interpret the scope and
> authority that way.

There are two different sets of changes:

    - Changes that fall within the current bounds of RFCs
      2418 and 2026.

    - Changes that would require modifications to our BCPs.

I agree with you that the IESG can unilaterally enact changes that 
fall into the first category, and I think we should.  Some ADs are 
already running some experiments in their areas.  We're also forming 
the PROTO Team to do some focused work in this area, and to come
up with a set of recommendations to the IESG regarding what types
of experiments should be run and eventually what changes should be 
made.

I do NOT believe that it is the perogative of the IESG 
(hisory not withstanding) to enact changes that lie outside
the bounds of RFCs 2418 and 2026.  Those changes can only
be enacted through community consensus.  

I agree with you that there are some options, other than a WG, 
for achieving community review and consensus, but I don't see
other options that will allow for the breadth of community
input that a well-run WG could allow. 
 
> (1) Let's have those ADs who are enthused about transferring
> more authority and responsibility to WG Chairs, do it.

Within the bounds of RFCs 2418 and 2026, we are already working
on this.  Some ADs are already running experiments, and we're
forming the PROTO Team to provide a focused effort in this area.
There is nothing about the proposed WG that should delay these
efforts, and I do not think that the IESG can (or will) use 
"lack of community consensus" as an excuse for not improving
the procedures and tools that we developed without any community
involvement in the first place.

While "just do it" sounds very compelling, we don't want to cause 
confusion and/or create serious problems that will seriously delay 
work within the IETF.  So, we are "just doing it" more carefully 
than you might be suggesting.

However, I think that the community can (and should) push the
IESG to produce results in this area, as well as in the area of
early cross-area review.  

I will, personally, be extremely disappointed in the IESG if we 
can't show some significant progress in the following two areas
by ~March 2004:

    - Improving the scalability, openness and effectiveness
      of our internal procedures and tools, particularly 
      improving the visibility and control that WGs have
      over their documents in the later stages of document
      processing.

    - Improving the level of cross-area review that is done
      outside the IESG, particularly earlier in the process.

To me, significant progress would include some specific plans 
for improvements that may be implemented in 2004, early reports
from some ongoing experiments, etc.

> 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. 

Also, there are two ADs in most areas, so we need to reach some 
agreement with our co-ADs about what experiments will/won't be run 
within each area.  In most cases, this type of moderating influence
is probably a good thing.

> (2) The other major concern that has been voiced involves WG
> Chairs abusing their (possibly new-found) power.  But WG Chairs
> serve more or less at the pleasure of ADs.   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, but unfortunately there are some well-respected 
and outspoken members of the community who do not agree.  So,
we need to do some more work before we can any reach consensus in
this area.
 
> 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.  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.

Some people say that RFCs 2418 and 2026 already empower WG chairs 
to do those things, but other argue that having WG chairs do these
things would violate RFCs 2418 and 2026...  People who have been
in my WGs and/or my WG Chairs training know where I fall, but 
my view is certainly not universal.  So, at the very least, it 
would be nice if our BCPs were less ambiguous about the responsibility 
and authority of WG chairs.

Margaret


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