Some observations

[Erik Huizer <[e-mail]>]

I would like to make some observations on the Crocker/Malamud draft. I
apologise beforehand if I repeat things that have been posted earlier. I try
to avoid it, but the amount of mail is slightly overwhelming and I might
have missed something.

Let me start of by saying that I am a relative newcomer to the IETF. After
attending IETFs for 2.5 years and being on the IESG for a year now, I am
still amazed at the lack of procedures and structures. Official that is.
Because the keen observer at IETF meetings notices the hidden structures of
seniority and eloquence. As I have a natural dislike of rigid structures and
processes I am quite satisfied with the way I see the IETF works up to now.
However I recognise that it depends heavily on goodwill and voluntary
efforts, and that with the current growth and internationalisation
procedures need to be defined and structures need to be revised and
installed.

What I like about the C/M paper in this context is the fact that it walks
delicately the thin tightrope between too rigid and too loose. Like many
others have stated before me I like the way they couple the Technical
process to the Isoc for a legal/organisational framework. Although I can
fully understand the uneasiness voiced by Marshall, Stef, Bill and others
about Isoc, I am very much willing to give it a chance, and willing to help
it develop in the right way. Standing back and stating that Isoc will not
work, will certainly not make it easier for Isoc to work in a way that is
acceptable to the Technical community. I admit that I may be biased as I am
woking in two communities, the IETF and RARE, and therefore know most of the
Trustees, which makes it easier for me to have faith.

I subscribe also to the idea of the Process board and the Technical board.
The idea of an AAG is one which is already proving its value in the current
structure, and which might prove crucial in the new one. Let me elaborate on
this. In the proposed election process for staffing of the Technical board
(and in the E-mail discussions on the subject) I think that not enough
emphasis has been put on the fact that what a body like that needs (like the
current IESG) is good managers that have a good knowledge of the technology
involved rather than good technicians with some managerial skills.

On whatever process and structure we will decide, the TB will be faced with
much of the tasks that are currently in the IESG. And my experience is that
being in the IESG takes up 50% of my official working week (and my wife
claims it takes up 100% of the rest), and a significant part of that time is
filled with things that I would qualify as managerial (i.e. coordination,
procedural work, meetings etc.). As for the technical work, I admit (and
this probably immediately disqualifies me from being elected :-) that
several drafts come out of my area that are beyond my technical capabilities
to review. I can read them, I can understand the workings and issues,
however for some of these drafts, I do not have enough experience to judge
all of the implications, especially when it comes down to whether it is
"code-able". The reason for this, I will admit, is that I work for a service
provider, rather than for an organization involved in producing code in one
form or another. I solve the problem of shortage of technical knowledge
by a) having a very
good co-AD, and b) asking senior people in my area for advise (the AAG you
might say).

That is why I want to stress the AAG principle: 
- Area Chairs need lots of time to manage, and therefore need support from
  an AAG to help with technical advice.  
- There is not ONE technological perspective, embodied in one senior person,
  but there are several (implementors, service providers).
I therefore would like to see the AAG part in the C/M draft worked out in a
bit stricter fashion. I would like to put thetask of architectural design
with the AAG. The architecture (once accepted by rough concensus) can then
be guarded by the TB (and in the ultimate case by th PB).

Having said this I want to voice another fear I have with the discussions
and the C/M draft on election processes. How do we make sure that the
election process does not:
1- create an unballanced TB
2- scare off volunteers

ad 1) Like I have said above, in my view a TB needs to consist of good
technicians from different backgrounds (implementors, service providers),
but also preferably from different geographical regions. I will note that
despite the increasing internationalisation of the IETF, the majority is
still US based. US knows US better than US knows them (if you get what I
mean). You may for example want to count the number of non-US people in the
E-mail with names for positions in the new structure that Craig send out last
week. I am not trying to suggest that people will on purpose only select US
technicians. 

ad 2) Before I could join the IESG, and say to Phill that I was available, I
had to go through a process of rearranging workload, project planning, and
talking to customers, bosses and colleagues, that took over two months. Only
then I had enough confidence and support at home to say: "I want to do this".
I don't see anyone go through this process, only to say: " I am a
candidate", to hear afterwards he/she was not selected. Postponing the whole
process until after the appointment poses obvious problems.

Fact is that the election process has to be very sunbtle as it deals
essentially with volunteers.

I would have loved to reserve this last paragraph for a clean-cut solution
to the problems I observe above, however I must confess I don't have one
(yet). I hope we can discuss this next week in Washington, see you there,


Erik