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

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

James,

JK> I disagree. I see nothing in 2026 or 2418 that gives a WG chair the
JK> authority to hold a document because they believe there are flaws in the

That is correct.  Chairs do not have the authority to overrule the
Working Group.  The chair's job is to facilitate, not control.

For every example of wayward working groups, we need to worry equally
about wayward chairs.  The challenge is to find a balance.

In the IETF, we try to do that through diverse participation. When a
diverse group strongly embraces a decision, then we have a legitimate
decision.

The challenge with a wayward working group is that it is, at best, a
diverse sample of the larger community that shares a common goal. The
serious problems occur when it is not diverse or experienced enough or
does not have a strongly shared goal.

But the same can be true for the knowledge, perspective and possible
bias of the chair.


JK> design. Rough concensus doesn't mean one person objects, it means some
JK> significant number, over a majority object.

The rough consensus thing comes in two forms.  Objecting and agreeing.
So a rough consensus of agreement means that there is not a strong,
substantial disagreement.


JK>  Besides, if the WG chair does
JK> hold the document, what are they supposed to do with it?

This concern about delaying the process for a chair-invoked hold makes
sense to me pnly if there were some sort of surprise at the end of the
working group process. But there never is, especially with the glacial
pace that most working groups operate at.

So a chair who feels that the working group is wayward has months to
use, to recruit corrective assistance.

           We do not have crises, except through delayed oversight.

           Review early and review often.

           
JK> . I suppose a chair could submit the document to the IESG
JK> with a list of flaws that the chair thinks need to get fixed, but even that
JK> is going outside of what 2026 and 2418 prescribe as the WG chair's role.

Not really.  The IETF looks for comments whenever they are offered, and
from whoever offers them.

As a matter of efficiency, there are good times and bad, for some input.
That's why the distinction between "I don't like a decision" versus "The
decision won't work" is so important.  The former is useful earlier in
a process, and wasteful any other time.  The latter is always useful.

 
JK> There is also a point about the role of reviews that I perhaps did
JK> not articulate clearly. The point is that the reviewers are outside
JK> the WG, so that they function like a traditional QA team in software
JK> development, as a check on the spec developers (and thus on WG
JK> concensus); otherwise, the utility of the reviews is limited.

I think that an informed, diligent review is useful, no matter where it
came from.  The problem is with _relying_ on reviews that come from the
developers.


JK> Thus, they are not, strictly speaking, subject to WG concensus.

On the other hand, consensus among reviewers ought to be pretty
noteworthy...


JK> any review mechanism needs to be binding on the WG,

This moves us back to the "authority" focus, rather than the "consensus"
focus. Certainly a working group is obligated to deal with comments it
receives. But what does it mean for those comments to be "binding"?
Going down that path gets more complicated, because then we must deal
with questions about the expertise and intent of the reviewer.

Working groups are usually diligent at dealing with comments.  When they
aren't, it provides further examples that the wg is rogue.

d/
--
 Dave Crocker <dcrocker-at-brandenburg-dot-com>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <www.brandenburg.com>
 Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:[phone]>


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