Avri,
I hear what you are saying. I retained the proposed text
for being obliged to respond only when direct by IAB/IESG
because people seemed to want it for rate limiting (i.e.,
preventing DoS). So, we can't just throw it out. We can
change it (entirely), but the empty set option does
not seem to meet other requirements expressed here.
The one further adjustment I think I would suggest to
my text of yesterday is to change "Answered requests...
made public" to "All requests...made public". I.e., it
should not be possible for the IAD/IAOC to sweep issues
under a carpet.
Personally, I believe that does make the IASA ultimately
accountable to the IETF community as a whole, even if it
is not *instantaneously* accountable to the IETF community
for every decision.
And I think it is important that we not lose sight of
the other things my proposed text attempted to capture
and distinguish.
Leslie.
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, 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 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.
a.
On 25 jan 2005, at 21.15, Leslie Daigle wrote:
--------
3.5 Business Decisions
Decisions made by the IAD in the course of carrying out IASA business
activities are subject to review by the IAOC.
The decisions of the IAOC must be publicly documented for each formal
action.
3.6 Responsiveness of IASA to the IETF
The IAOC is directly accountable to the IETF community for the
performance of the IASA. In order to achieve this, the
IAOC and IAD will ensure that guidelines are developed
for regular operation decision making. Where appropriate, these
guidelines should be developed with public input. In all
cases, they must be made public.
Additionally, the IASA should ensure there are reported objective
performance metrics for all IETF process supporting activities.
In the case where someone questions that an action of the IAD or the
IAOC has been undertaken in accordance with this document
or those operational guidelines (including the creation of an
appropriate set of such guidelines), he or she may ask for a formal
review of the action.
The request for review is addressed to the person or body that took
the action. It is up to that body to decide to make a response,
and on the form of a response.
The IAD is required to respond to requests for a review from the
IAOC, and the IAOC is required to respond to requests for a review
of a decision from the IAB or from the IESG.
If members of the community feel that they are unjustly denied a
response to a request for review, they may ask the IAB or the IESG
to make the request on their behalf.
Answered requests for review and their responses are made public.
Reviews of the IAD's actions will be considered at his or her following
performance review. Reviews of the IAOC's actions may be considered
when IAOC members are subsequently being seated.
_______________________________________________
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