Re: Quality Control and that nasty A word (was: Re: [mpowr] Re: [Solutions] Further work on WG (chair) roles - MPOWR WG proposal)

["James Kempf" <[e-mail]>]

Pete,

By "immediate situation" I meant the situation of how the QA process is
handled. By "accountability" I meant how alleged abuses are handled.

Your point about appeal is about "accountability", not about "immediate
situation". These are two different processes, and it would be well not to
confuse them.

I agree with you about "accountability", I don't agree about how to
structure the "immediate situation".

        jak

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Pete Resnick" <[e-mail]>
To: "James Kempf" <[e-mail]>
Cc: "Dave Crocker" <[e-mail]>om>; "MPowr" <[e-mail]>rg>;
<[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 9:55 AM
Subject: Re: Quality Control and that nasty A word (was: Re: [mpowr] Re:
[Solutions] Further work on WG (chair) roles - MPOWR WG proposal)


> On 12/16/03 at 8:28 AM -0800, James Kempf wrote:
>
> >So doesn't the fact that the IESG can say "no" make it a hierarchy?
>
> No, it doesn't. For example:
>
> >I fail to see any difference in the immediate situation between an
> >Area Director returning a document to a working group after AD
> >Review and saying "fix this or I'm not going to submit it to the
> >IESG" and a division director saying "fix these bugs or I'm not
> >going to release the software".
>
> Because the development team can't appeal the division director's
> decision, and the development team members cannot initiate the
> process to fire the division director. And moreover, the development
> team cannot decide (with the rest of the departments) to restructure
> the corporation and get rid of the division director.
>
> Also, the division director is under no obligation to negotiate with
> the development team if the development team disagrees with the
> division director. The division director has no responsibility to try
> to resolve disputes, even if it is a nice thing to do.
>
> >Of course, there are differences in accountability. The division
> >director is only accountable to his VP while the AD is accountable
> >to the community. As I've said in other emails, *that* means that
> >should WG chairs be given more - it you don't like the word
> >"authority" call it something else, maybe "X stuff" - then there
> >needs to be a similar accountability mechanism for them.
> [emphasis added]
>
> First of all, *what* means that chairs should be given more
> authority? I don't see how that follows from anything you've said.
> (And I *do* think we're talking about authority here; no need to call
> it "X stuff".)
>
> Second of all, accountability is *not* the only difference between
> the division director and the AD; the entire set of responsibilities
> is similarly different.
>
> >No sane person is going to take the responsibility to do something
> >without the authority to get it done.
>
> You've said that twice now and I'm still at a loss to know what
> you're talking about. It sounds like a catch phrase. What
> responsibility have we given (or do we want to give) to an AD or to a
> WG chair for which we haven't given them the authority to get it
> done? An AD has the responsibility to review documents coming out of
> working groups. Chairs have the responsibility to make sure that
> consensus is reached on all open document issues. We're talking about
> giving chairs the responsibility to collect technical reviews early
> in the process and to do a technical writeup at the end of the
> process. Yes, for all of these responsibilities, the ADs and chairs
> should know that the community has the authority to overrule them.
> But how does that equate to not having the authority to get those
> things done? Does the prospect of appeal or recall prevent ADs from
> pushing back on WGs? Does the prospect of appeal or recall prevent a
> chair from invoking 2026 to say, "Let's try to bring this set of open
> issues from the review to consensus"?
>
> >One argument some have made against giving the WG chairs more X
> >stuff is that we don't get very good people as WG chairs.
>
> Straw man. I've certainly never said that.
>
> >If they aren't given the X stuff to match their responsibility,
> >we'll get even worse.
>
> So effectively you're saying that power is the only reward for which
> good chairs will work. I've not found that to be the case.
>
> pr
> -- 
> Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
> QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]
>


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