Re: On the IETF Consensus process

[Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>]

On 2007-05-26 00:17, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
> 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.

Yes of course - and in my experience both things happen. But the IAB is
only 13 people, so you can't expect them to be the originator of all
innovation. And the IAB tries to be proactive in various ways, not
just in the BOF process.

> > 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. 

I'm trying to explain the things that need to be discussed in
private: personnel questions, as you say below.

> 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?

I don't think they are. In fact I've often seen IAB members send mail
to a public list that contains the same points as their BOF report
to the IAB+IESG, except for the personnel issues. If the IAB did decide
to make the BOF reports public, they would clearly be versions
without the personnel issues.

> Being recalled?  
> That never happens!

But nevertheless, in my experience both the IAB and IESG are aware
that it could happen. I'm not saying that is a cure-all, but it's
a reminder that they are responsible to the community.

> 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.

That could happen, but the timeline for BOFs is very tight. I don't
think there's time for such a process in reality, unless we made the
deadlines much earlier.
> There is no need for any significant "private" discussion (except for 
> discussion on personnel, 

That is exactly the point. Who chairs a BOF is a personnel issue.

> 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.

Nothing?

> > 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?

Not my department any more ;-)

   Brian

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