Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 13:34:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: James M Galvin <galvin(_at_)acm(_dot_)org>
Message-ID:
<Pine(_dot_)BSF(_dot_)4(_dot_)21(_dot_)0110151308240(_dot_)24636-100000(_at_)two(_dot_)elistx(_dot_)com>
| My interpretation of that charter (which I'll boldly proclaim is a
| shared interpretation by the General AD and my co-Chair) is that when an
| issue is discussed that clearly falls within the purview of POISSON we
| still need approval to promote that issue to a work item of the working
| group.
From where exactly do you draw that conclusion. Nothing in the IETF
processes I have ever read, or heard of, suggests anything like that.
| You see, it is not within the purview of POISSON to decide by itself,
| without approval from the IESG, that any process related document is
| fair game to be opened, reviewed, and revised whenever POISSON decides
| it should be done. I can not imagine where you got any expectation at
| all that that was how things worked.
We seem to differ as to how the IETF should function - perhaps along the
lines John K suggested in his reply to me. I don't view the IETF as
a bunch of volunteers all clustered round waiting to do the bidding of
the IESG, whatever that might be. IMO, the "members" of the IETF are
in control - the IESG are just the management we appoint to help things
run smoothly (or smoother anyway). It is the IETF that decides what
it wants to do, and when - not the IESG (though of course, the IESG
given its insights into everything that is happening, can often be the
first to identify areas that need work)
| I can not think of a single analog
| of such a procedure in any organization anywhere.
You mean you can't think of any organisation where the members can
decide that something should be altered? Not, for example, any
random company where some number of the members can demand a special
general meeting and put items on the agenda to be discussed? None
at all???
Certainly the way the IETF works, in all regards, is different to
most other organisations - not having any real defined members as
such makes a difference.
| That is not to say
| that organizations to not have a way to revise their processes, but
| there are checks and balances. The decision does not come from one side
| of the issue.
poisson is one side??? What is the other side supposed to be? Ie:
who is the enemy? poisson is supposed to be (at least representative of)
all of us - just the same as any other WG. Anyone can be a part of it,
and all viewpoints can be expressed.
Checks and balances, sure, we have those - first we have to get WG
consensus (rough consensus) on some outcome, then we need to get the
rest of the IETF (via last call) to agree to it, and even then, the
procedures allow the IESG to veto it (subject to appeal of course).
There are plenty of checks and balances already - we don't need to
be under anyone's thumb before deciding to do some work .. just getting
consensus (rough) in the WG that we should undertake something is a
big enough barrier as it is.
| In principle this is precisely the process of updating the charter to
| indicate the actual work item.
It would be, if the charter needed to be updated. For very good reason,
poisson's charter is very broad as it is...
| At no time was discussion ever cut off on a relevant issue. Taking on
| an issue as a work item has been cut-off. From my perspective and in my
| experience this is due process.
You will note that I haven't been complaining about process issues wrt
poisson (or not until this attempt to kill it). I have no complains
about how the group has appeared to have been run at least - not now, and
I haven't in the past. If this background IESG approval seeking has been
happening, it can't have materially affected anything, or I suspect that
you would have heard the complaints before now. And if that's true, then
I wonder whether it was ever necessary in the first place.
kre