Re: Sunshine Law

Ummm, when I saw

> That's not quite the point. Both in an ad hoc group like Adminrest,
> and in the IAB and IESG, it is entirely possible that in a 
> discussion
> of the real issues, something like the following would be said:
>
> A: The real problem here is X, who simply can't do his/her job.
> B: No, it's Y, who has set impossible boundary conditions on X.
> C: I think it was Z's fault, when he/she hired X and Y.
> A: Anyway, X is overpaid.
> C: Have you any idea how much housing costs there?
> D: Let's focus. Is the problem these people, or is the
>    contract with XYZ screwed up? [Alternatively: is
>    the WG charter screwed up?]
>
> I made that up, but it is the sort of things that have to be
> discussed sometimes. If you can't keep such discussions 
> confidential,
> they won't happen, and the real issue will never be faced
> (i.e. is X, Y, Z or the organizational setup to blame, and
> what should be changed).
I immediately thought of http://www.quotedb.com/quotes/146, which 
attributes to Eleanor Roosevelt this thought:
"Great minds discuss great ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small 
minds discuss people."
I am gratified that the same e-mail contained this paragraph, just a 
little further on:
> I won't reply in more detail to Margaret's note, except to say
> that if the confidentiality clauses she quotes are used *except*
> for the above sort of discussion, they're being misused IMHO.
If we have the habit of getting to D: quickly, we don't need to invoke 
confidentiality nearly as often as people who cycle on A:, B:, or 
C:...
As long as I'm typing, I'll add one minor point that I haven't seen 
raised yet.
"Discussions that take place in private don't start building broad 
consensus until they go public."
I tend to be pretty supportive of IETF leadership, and I take our 
organizational discussions pretty seriously. I serve on the General 
Directorate, and I participate in the IETF General Discussion list, 
NEWTRK, ICAR, SOLUTIONS, and IPR. I'm assuming that if I never heard 
of "Scenario C and Scenario O" before September 20 (first appearance 
on the IETF General Discussion list), most IETF participants didn't 
hear of it before then, either. When I have any clue that some thought 
is about to appear on the horizon, I do my best to prepare myself to 
be a supporter. In this case, I had no clue thoughts were coming.
If your idea is so good that people will leap on the bandwagon 
immediately, fine. Just allow time for flatfooted supporters to catch 
up. For example, I support every idea I've heard come out of PROTO, 
but I didn't know that anything was happening until we got to San 
Diego.
The people who will be agreeing with you could be saying "what a good 
idea!" instead of "what, a good idea?"
Confidentiality for salary discussion is unavoidable (although I 
belong to a denomination that posts every salary for comments), and 
confidentiality for consistent poor performance is unavoidable (even 
if you're a dictator, everyone knows that your evaluation has arrived 
when it's taped to the nose of a cruise missile). If we spend more 
than two hours per year under the cone of silence, that's 
unfortunate...
Spencer 


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