[mpowr] SUMMARY: Give WG chairs authority to block documents?

[Margaret Wasserman <[e-mail]>]

This message summarizes the third sub-discussion that we had
under the heading of the MPOWR WG Proposal:

(3) Should WG chairs have the authority to block documents
due to low technical quality, insufficient review, etc.?

This discussion took place under the MPOWR WG Proposal subject
and also under the subject "Quality Control and that nasty
A word".

This discussion grew out of the discussion (mentioned in
earlier summaries) about the distinction between shifting more
responsibility to WG chairs and shifting more authority to
WG chairs.

In particular, Pete Resnick thought that he heard many people
at the plenary say that giving WG chairs "the authority to say
no" was a really bad idea.

In response, Dave Crocker indicated that the focus on authority
is misplaced.  What we really need to do is foster more
collaboration.

James Kempf pointed out that if we want chairs to be responsible
for making sure that documents are well-reviewed and that the
review comments are addressed, we will need to give them the
authority to hold documents until these criteria are met.

Pete Resnick stated his opinion that chairs don't need more
authority to hold document in this case, and offered a definition
of consensus that would allow WG chairs to hold these documents
except in cases where the WG has specifically considered these
questions and does believe that sufficient review has been
obtained and the issues addressed.  James disagreed that
chairs have this authority under the existing BCPs.

A discussion ensued, the conclusion of which is that, although
WG chairs have broad authority to define and determine cosensus,
only ADs currently have the authority to hold a document
because the document has technical problems or design flaws.

Dave Crocker pointed out that this is correct and appropriate.
The WG chair should never be able to overrule WG consensus.

James Kempf commented that, in order for an early review system
to be effective, the comments need to be binding.  In other
words, WGs need to be required to address them.  James used
the analogy of a QA department in a software company.

Pete Resnick pointed out that the IETF is a open, consensus-
driven organization and that this type of organization inherently
gives more responsibility to its leaders than authority.  Some
discussion ensued about whether the IETF actually is a hierarchy
or not...

Dave Crocker pointed out that in the IETF, the troops really
are in charge.  Working groups have inherent power, whereas
WG chairs and ADs only have derived power.  He later pointed
out that explicitly assigning authority to one agent implies
that the other agents do not have the responsibility.  In other
words, if we may WG chairs responsible for document quality,
that implies that the WGs are not responsible for quality.

In response, Alex Rousskov started a thread with the subject
"Troops vs.Superpower" which discussed the relative authority of
the IESG vs. WGs.  This eventually led to Alex Conta and Robert
Snively making a suggestion to move all technical authority out
of the IESG.  Alex Rousskov, James Kempf and Pekka Savola
disagreed, citing a lack of people willing to do completely
non-technical IETF work.  Robert Snively suggested that this
could be addressed by making the IESG a paid secretariat
function.

One useful take-away from this portion of the conversation
is that it is important, as we discuss making changes to
the responsibility/authority of different positions, to be
mindful of what motivates people to participate in the
IETF at each level.

Alex Conta pointed that having WG chairs be involved in
the technical work of a WG can present a conflict of
interest.  Pekka Savola pointed out that this is often
addressed by having more than one WG chair, so that no one
has to serve in the chair role for his own document.  There
was some further discussion about how/if WG chairs should
be involved in the technical work of their WGs.

Conclusions:

I was unable to draw any firm conclusions from this portion
of the discussion, except that it is clear that we do not
have consensus among those involved in this discussion about
either:

(1) What level authority WG chairs currently have to block
documents based on quality criteria.

-or-

(2) What level authority WG chairs should have to block
documents based on quality criteria.




















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