Re: POISED Document 5.1

[Russ Hobby <[e-mail]>]

Carl and Steve,

I think that your document spells out the areas of responsibility
that need better definition: technical management and architecture,
and process management. As you say, the document provides one way
of better defining these area, and, yes, there are other ways that
it could be done, but I believe that this one can work (as well as
other ways)

As an IESG member, I will admit, that there have been a lot of
times where I have been unsure of who does what between the
WGs, the IESG, and the IAB. It has been an evolving system and
often we have been just reacting to a particular situation.

Now some comments on the document. One thing that it does not address
is how to resolve things when concensus can not be reached. This will
be an even greater problem in the future becuase of the growing interest
and population involved. We are already at the point where complete
concesus in not reached. I see people fighting harder for their
position particularly since the Internet is now "Big Bucks". While the
Process Board can refine techniques, I think that the frame work for
decisions needs to be addressed before handing it over to them. Some
models to consider are:

 1) Let different views proceed and let the market decide. (free market)
 2) Have an offical vote on the direction. (ledgislative)
 3) Have person or panal make the dicision (judicial)

Each approach has it's problems. The free market (1) leads to divergent
communities and much effort is wasted by those that spend time and
money on "the loser". The process will also require a lot of time
to come to a conclusion. However, there are those that say that is the
way it is going to work even if there is a decision process.

The ledgislative approach (2) is difficult in the Internet community
because we can not easily define who the voting body really is. 
Also as decisions become more important to people (again the big
bucks problem) it will become political with lobbying and deals
for votes. This can also lead to long times to come to a final
vote.

The judicial approach (3) can quickly come to conclusion, but you need
to have judges that everyone can agree to trust to be knowledgable and
impartial.  Also there usually are appeals processes that can slow
things if they are used too much.

It sure is a lot easier to get things done when few people care about
the outcome ;-)

Another problem I see with both the current and proposed systems is
that volunteers usually have duties that have higher priorities at
least at times. With the economic crunch, people are being asked to do
more by their employers or to keep their business going. Delays in the
current system have often been because the volenteer worker (WG chair,
IESG, IAB) may have to attend to other duties for perhaps a month
without being able to get to volunteer Internet work. I know if I go on
a two week holiday, it may be another two weeks before I can really get
back to IESG work. I will try to catch the IESG emergencies as soon as
I get back, but the work I get paid for does take priority.  I think
that this is true for most others as well. I don't know what the answer
is though. Better use of the Secreriat, or payed positions for the
boards?

Sorry to be so long, but I think that these are issues that need to
be looked at.

Russ