Re: Things that I think obvious....

Margaret,

I think you captured what I wanted to say well. Thank you!

--On onsdag, september 15, 2004 09:19:08 -0400 Margaret Wasserman 
<margaret(_at_)thingmagic(_dot_)com> wrote:
> Hi Harald,
>
> As you say below, "clarity is good".  So, before I respond to this post,
> I would like to better understand what you are asking...
>
> RFC 3716 includes the following section:
>
> "4.3.  Who Can Decide
>
>     The AdvComm believes that the IETF leadership, acting with the advice
>     and consent of the IETF community and ISOC, have the ability and the
>     responsibility to act on the recommendation to formalize the IETF."
>
> So, given your definitions below and the contents of other messages, I
> think you are asking whether there is IETF community consensus on the
> following statement:
>
>     The [IESG and IAB], acting with the advice and consent of the [people
>     who do the technical work of the IETF] and ISOC, have the ability and
>     the responsibility to act on the recommendation to formalize the IETF
>     [administrative support activity].
>
> To make a decision regarding whether or not I agree with this statement,
> I would need to understand what is meant by "advice and consent".  In
> previous non-public conversations, these terms have been defined as
> follows:
>
> > - ADVICE - someone posits a problem, the group discusses, and comes up
> > with viewpoints that may or may not be helpful. The viewpoints go back
> > to the person(s) being advised, but the group is NOT expected to reach a
> > decision. Conflicting opinions are expected, and are Not A Problem.
> >
> > - CONSENT - someone makes a proposal, and asks for the consent of the
> > group. The group uses the consensus process to develop a position, but
> > the outcome is much more bounded than in consensus problem solving -
> > generally, it's limited to "I can live with this" and "Go back and try
> > again, this won't work".
> Advice from the community can be obtained through discussion on this (and
> other?) IETF mailing lists and through plenary discussions.
>
> The usual method for determining the consent of the community is through
> IETF Last Call and IESG review/approval.
>
> In other words, I think you are proposing that the options for
> administrative restructuring should be discussed openly (as they are
> being discussed now) so that the community has an opportunity to provide
> advice, that the IAB & IESG should jointly develop a specific proposal
> for further community review/advice, and that the final proposal should
> be subject to community consent through the usual IETF Last Call and IESG
> review/approval mechanism.
>
> Am I understanding your question correctly?  If so, then yes, I do agree
> with it.
>
> ...but I don't consider it to be at all obvious.
>
> Margaret
>
>
> At 12:21 PM +0200 9/9/04, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> > I thought it would make sense for me to mention a few things I have
> > regarded as "obvious" in this discussion - just to make sure nobody
> > comes along later and says "you can't draw a conclusion based on
> > that - while I agree with you, there might be others who don't" or
> > something like that.
> > Clarity is good.
> >
> > It is very hard to state these things in a way where nobody can
> > quibble with the formulations, but I will try anyway.
> >
> > 1 - The IETF exists, and it is the IETF community.
> >
> > Even though we have carefully avoided defining its boundaries, I
> > believe that we all believe that the IETF exists. And it's obvious
> > that if the people who do the technical work leave, the IETF is
> > nothing.
> > So the IETF is the community.
> >
> > 2 - The IETF leadership is the IESG and IAB.
> >
> > Some jobs are clearly given to the IESG in our documents; other jobs
> > are clearly given to the IAB. Some jobs are not mentioned at all.
> > As part of the process of change, the community may select other
> > people or create new bodies for other types of leadership.
> > And the IAB and IESG has to be in a continuing dialogue with the
> > community in order to figure out what the right things to do are.
> > But there is at present no other leadership function selected by the
> > community.
> >
> > 3 - The community has accepted the problem description and
> > principles laid out in RFC 3716.
> >
> > The most common reaction I have had from people who have read RFC
> > 3716 is "it's obvious, now that you say it". And it would be hard
> > for anyone who reads the IETF list or the IETF-announce list, or the
> > most recent plenaries, to be completely unaware of its existence, or
> > that we are basing further work on its conclusions.
> > So - if there was significant disagreement with its conclusions -
> > I'd have expected to hear that before now.
> >
> > As I said - I *think* these things are fairly obvious. But it might
> > still be reasonable to check that other people agree.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ietf mailing list
> > Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf




_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf