Re: On the IETF Consensus process

[Lakshminath Dondeti <ldondeti at qualcomm.com>]

Hi Brian,

Glad to hear that you see the value in making the IAB reports public.  I 
think that this is something that needs to happen on an urgent basis. 
Please see inline for additional notes:

On 5/25/2007 1:39 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 2007-05-24 20:11, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 23, 2007 06:56:10 PM -0700 Lakshminath Dondeti 
> > <ldondeti at qualcomm.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > > For instance, I had started thinking more clearly about BoF processes 
> > > and
> > > how a small set of people can derail a BoF process after I started this
> > > thread.  A few vocal people at the mic and secret reports from IAB
> > > members (conflicts of interest seem to go unnoticed) can undo months
> > > worth of work and the proponents have to wait 4 more months to do
> > > anything.  There is no reason it needs to be that way.
> >
> > Sorry; I really want to answer this part, but I'm out of time for now. 
> > Perhaps I'll come back to it next week.
>
> Well, I'll have a go. First of all, advising the IESG on WG chartering is
> part of the IAB's job, and in my opinion it is the most important point
> at which the IAB can actually exercise architectural influence rather than
> just pontificating.

Sure, we need the reactive approach (architectural policing), but I 
think that the proactive aspects (architectural guidance) are also 
essential.

> Secondly, some of what needs to be discussed at the post-BOF, pre-WG
> stage is intrinsically private: suitability of people to be WG chairs,
> questions about conflict of interest on the part of individuals who
> are pushing for one or another solution, etc. I strongly defend the
> IESG and IAB's right to private discussion on these points. And that
> means private email.

That all sounds too political!  Most of this should be transparent. 
What are people on the IESG/IAB afraid of in sharing their honest views 
on whether a particular BoF proposal is bad/ugly/good/ok?  Being 
recalled?  That never happens!

As to picking chairs, why is the BoF process any different than the WG 
chair picking process (interim appointments)?  The sponsoring/advising 
AD may send a call for nominations, may seek input from the community 
(some of them may be on I*, sure) and makes a decision.  He/she might 
write a blurb on why a certain person was selected too.

There is no need for any significant "private" discussion (except for 
discussion on personnel, legal and financial aspects).  Let's just say 
that I like BCP 39's Section 3.6 better than Section 3.2 of 3710.

> Thirdly, IAB and IESG members could indeed have potential conflict
> between their (or their employers') goals and "making the Internet
> work better". That's intrinsic to everything the IAB and IESG do,
> not just to BOF handling and WG chartering. That's why we have
> a preference for openness whenever possible, and why we have the
> appeals and (theoretical) recall mechanisms.

Having been on the nomcom, my recollection is that people say the right 
things in their questionnaires or interviews.  So, I wonder what's going on.

> So, I would see value in the IAB's BOF reports being made public,
> as far as their technical content goes, but on the clear
> understanding that there will be private communication on sensitive
> issues.

Let's start making the IAB BoF reports public!  Do we need to write a 
draft for this or does the IAB just need to start doing the right thing?

regards,
Lakshminath

>      Brian

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf