At 06:21 PM 1/19/2005, Leslie Daigle wrote:
Interesting...
To the extent that the IAD and IAOC are dealing with
decisions about implementing requirements, I agree.
To the extent that the IAD and IAOC are applying judgement
to interpret the "best needs of the IETF" (i.e., determining
those requirements), I disagree. I think it's a little
heavy-handed to have to instigate a recall procedure if the
IAD (or IAOC) seem not to have heard the *community's* requirements
for meeting location.
So, (how) can we make the distinction without creating a
decision tree of epic proportions?
Leslie.
Two things I learned in the military: 1) Pick good subordinates, give them
a clear goal and get out of the way. 2) Systems only work when authority
and responsibility are balanced.
What does that mean for the IAOC/IAD?
1) It means that we need to pick good people and then trust they will do
the right thing. We shouldn't attempt or expect to be able to manage them
on a retail basis (aka micro management). We shouldn't be second guessing
them. If we can't trust them we need to get rid of them (the nuclear option).
2) The problem with giving the IETF (for a loosely defined value of IETF)
direct review authority over the IAOC/IAD is that there isn't a concomitant
assignment of responsibility. For the selection of the IAOC, we can hope
the "members" (e.g. through the nomcom/IAB/IESG) will work in their own
self interest (which translates accepting responsibility for bad selections
for the committee). For the day to day business of the IAOC there really
isn't a way to ensure the people who would have the authority (e.g. to
force a review of the decisions, to second guess, etc, to cause various
disruptions) would also be saddled with the results of their bad
decisions. (Membership organizations at least have the benefit that the
member pays something to belong and so takes financial responsibility for
the org - maybe we require someone to post a bond as part of forcing a review?)
With respect to selecting where we go - well, that comes under the heading
of setting clear goals, but then getting out of the way.
It all comes down to who gets to decide and that's what's being argued
here. You? Me? The IAOC? The IAD? Everyone who ever read an email on
the IETF mailing list? The IAB? The IESG? *sigh* If it's the IETF then
lets not go through the farce of appointing an IAOC. If its the IAB or
IESG why do we need an IAOC?
For the specific issue of the meeting location I think it needs to be the
IAD with the advice and consent of the IAOC, with input from the IAB, IESG
and the community. And I think that's how most decisions will need to be
made if we want the IAOC to be an effective organization.
If you (general plural) really feel this section needs to stand I think you
need to address at least two issues and narrow them substantially: who has
standing to ask for a formal review? and on what specific issues can the
IAOC/IAD be reviewed? If you can't this section needs to go.
For standing you've currently got "someone"... *sigh*
For issues you've got "a decision of the IAD or IAOC" ... *sigh* At a
minimum, I'd explicitly prohibit review of the IADs actions by any body
except the IAOC - direct the review to the IAOC only.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf