-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org]On Behalf Of
avri(_at_)psg(_dot_)com
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 14:03
To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Mud. Clear as. Re: Rough consensus? #425 3.5
Hi Harald,
On 26 jan 2005, at 02.23, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
Avri,
--On tirsdag, januar 25, 2005 23:44:09 -0500 avri(_at_)psg(_dot_)com wrote:
Hi Leslie,
This formulation is still of the form that does not give the IETF
community a direct voice in the review and appeal
mechanisms for the
IAOC.
I do not understand what you mean by "direct voice". Could
you explain?
As I understand Leslie's formulation, the IAOC has no requirement to
process a review from a normal member of the IETF Community
unless that
request comes from the IAB or IESG. To my mind, this means that the
IAOC is answerable to the IAB or IESG and not directly answerable to
the IETF Community.
When an individual IETF participant makes a review request, it may be
ignored.
If someone is unhappy at being ignored they may make a request to the
IAB or IESG for recognition. This request may be also ignored, with
the only recourse to that being an appeal of the IAB or IESG decision
to ignore their request.
That is, it is only if someone interests the IAB or IESG in
their issue
that it forces a review. Also the only decision that can really be
appealed is the IAB or IESG handling of the request for a review not
the decision of the IAOC. I am defining that this as not
having direct
voice.
If what you mean is that the community should have representatives
involved in the consideration of the issues, and do not
think that the
nomcom-selected members, the IESG-selected members and the
IAB-selected members of the IAOC are appropriate community
representation, I do not see any mechanism short of the way we
constitute recall committees that will give you what you want.
My issue is not with how the members are appointed to the IAOC. I am
fine with that. My issue is whether they are accountable to the
community or the community's representatives. As written they are
accountable only to the the community's representatives and are thus
one step removed from direct accountability to the community.
If you think that the community should have the right of complaint,
then I think you need to accept some limitation by human
judgment on
how much effort each complaint can cause.
I have not seen any argument that convinces me that those
limits should
be any different then the limits to judgment that currently exist to
complaints, i.e. appeals, against the IAB or IESG. I am basically
using the 'running code' argument and asking that the appeal
process we
currently have be extended to this new IETF management group.
If that judgment is to lie outside of the IAOC, it has to
be invoked
for all complaints to the IAOC (making the system more
formalistic);
if it is inside the IAOC, it seems reasonable to have some means of
overriding it.
I, personally see not reason why the IAOC is not directly
addressable
by
the community and does not have a direct obligation to the IETF
community. While I am comfortable with the IESG and IAB being the
appeal
path for the IAOC, I am not comfortable with them being a
firewall for
the IAOC.
I do have a problem with seeing the words that Leslie proposed as
fitting your description. As described, it isn't a firewall
- it's an
override of a safeguard.
A firewall protects. As written the IESG or IAB protects the
IAOC from
the IETF community, which to some extent is being assumed to be a
sometimes malicious DOS'ing environment that the IAOC needs to be
isolated from.
I think this is a fundamental question that differentiates
Margaret's
formulation from yours. I also think it is a fundamental question
that
goes back to issues in the problem statement about the current
leadership
model: too much influence is focused in one leadership group. One
benefit of the creation of the IAOC is that it spreads the task of
running of the IETF to another group of people. As such,
I think the
IAOC must be required to respond directly to the community.
I don't quite see the logic here - we take tasks that are currently
performed in an undocumented and unaccountable fashion and
move them
into a body that has oversight over them, is selected by the
community, is removable by the community, and is (as I see it)
normally expected to respond to the community.
To some extent those tasks were performed in an unaccountable
fashion,
and to some extent the Chair's of the IAB and IESG (and maybe the
groups themselves) have been the only ones who had any
visibility, for
some degree of visibility, into them.
But that is not really the point. If as you say this is
oversight that
never occurred before, then I see this formulation as adding more
responsibilities to the IAB/IESG, i.e. acting as the
oversight body and
as the arbiter of the community's voice. And to refer back to the
Problem process this is adding responsibility to a group that is
already overloaded and which has a scope of responsibility that some
feel is already overly large.
I guess I dispute, and that really is a fundamental point, that the
IAOC in this formulation is normally expected to respond to the
community. I see them as normally expected to respond to the IAB and
IESG.
Question: My reading of Leslie's words is that "It is up to
that body
to decide to make a response" should be read by the IAOC as "you'd
better have a good reason not to make a response".
I don't read it that way. I read it as: "you don't have any need to
respond to anyone who is not in a senior leadership position." And
given that the Chair's of both the IAB and IESG will be on
the IAOC, it
puts them in the position of saying "we can ignore it, I
don't believe
the IAB or IESG will back up this request for a review even
if they get
that far".
Is what you're really looking for a way to make that "bias" in
judgment explicit?
I am not sure I understand this question. But if by '"bias" in
judgment' you mean: am I looking for a formulation that
forces the IAOC
to respond to every request for a review by members of the IETF
community, the answer is yes. And to go further I am looking for the
appeal to start with the IAOC and proceed from there through
the normal
IESG-IAB-ISOC BoT chain of appeal.
a.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf