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

[Eric Rosen <[e-mail]>]

Margaret> We get, by far, the  highest number of respondents when we conduct
Margaret> polls at the  plenaries, and perhaps those polls  are our best way
Margaret> to judge "IETF consensus"

This mystifies  me.  Unless the  room is filled  with people who  have given
careful thought to the issues, taking a poll of the room is unlikely to give
a useful result.  If you poll a  large room filled with tired people who are
primarily there as observers, are you getting informed and considered expert
opinions, or are you just getting a reaction to the personalities and to the
rhetoric?  

Polling  the  plenary is  only  useful  as a  way  for  the "leadership"  to
manipulate the outcome so that they can claim support.  So not surprisingly,
there  is always  a  dispute about  whether  the plenary  actually did  show
consensus.

>> (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").

Margaret> I  more-or-less agree  that  this should  be  sufficient chain  of
Margaret> accountability

I don't think so.  In the past I've successfully appealed WG chair decisions
to  the AD  by  demonstrating that  the  decision was  not  supported by  WG
consensus.  But  as the chairs get  more responsibility, there  will be more
possible grounds  for appeal,  and there  will be more  details that  the AD
needs  to know in  order to  judge the  appeal.  Appeals  will be  even less
effective than they currently are. 

At  the very  least, it  has to  be made  extremely clear  what  grounds are
appropriate for a chair to use when making a particular decision.

Harald has said that we should just trust to everyone's good intentions, but
of course that rather misses the point. 










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