Re: Voting (again)

On Tuesday, April 26, 2005 04:21:21 PM -0400 John C Klensin 
<john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com> wrote:
> First, the IESG job has become so burdensome in part because of
> decisions by the IESG about how much work they need to do and to
> what level of detail they need to address documents.  To take a
> handy, but deliberately non-specific, example, if the IESG
> considers it appropriate to hold a document up over the wording
> of a title or abstract, and to debate that wording, the cycles
> that go into the discussion are, however indirectly, a
> contribution to the IESG's becoming a full time job.   I would
> rather see the IESG fix that than having the community apply
> whatever blunt instruments it has --and there are some signs
> that the current IESG might make some steps in the right
> direction.  But, to the extent to which the Nomcom selects
> people who are happy having the IESG be a full time job, rather
> than dedicated to getting that workload down, the Nomcom and the
> community are endorsing what we then complain about.
All of this is true.  And, it's part of why I think that present IESG 
members are an essential part of any attempt to correct the full-time-job 
problem.  Note, however, that reducing the workload is not the only 
possible solution.  I suspect that even partial funding for these positions 
would make it easier for people to volunteer.


> Second, there are well-known phenomena in many political systems
> that lead people to say "well, that body consists mostly of
> scum, but my representative is a good guy".  The US Congress has
> turned into a particularly striking example, but it is by no
> means unique.    The attitude creates a very strong bias toward
> reselection of incumbents.   I suggest that the community, and
> the Nomcoms, end up suffering from the same phenomenon and that,
> if we don't like the symptoms that seem to come with people who
> have been on the IESG for too long, we need to start thinking
> about ways to adjust the system to prevent the "too long"
> situation.
I think the US Congress could benefit from term limits.  I'm not so sure 
about the IESG.  I think a certain amount of continuity is a good thing, 
and I start to worry when we have both AD's in an area turn over in less 
than a year.  And perhaps I'm in the minority, but on the whole I tend to 
believe the IESG is doing a reasonable job, and that its biggest problem is 
being too slow.  But then, I tend to believe the IESG should be somewhat 
conservative about insisting that documents produced by the IETF be of the 
highest technical quality (which is not the same as nitpicking about the 
abstract, or references, or document formatting, or other nits.  Those 
things should be done too, but before the document reaches the IESG and not 
by the IESG).


> Finally (at least for this note), the rate at which incumbents
> are returned if they are willing to put up with more punishment
> suggests that Nomcoms are asking not whether someone new could
> do the job about as well but whether they could do a better job
> than the incumbent.  Unless an incumbent is perceived as having
> really screwed up, the answer to that question will almost
> always be "no".  If nothing else, IESG roles are complex and
> anyone new will lose some number of weeks or months reading into
> the role.  Also someone new is always an uncertainty and it is
> rational and normal for, e.g., a WG Chair to advise the nomcom
> that a particular AD should be returned based on logic of "I
> have figured out how to work with this one, even though it is
> sometimes difficult; I wouldn't look forward to breaking in a
> new one, risking a worse relationship, etc."
I'm not sure this is a bad thing.  Sure, we could decide that we want term 
limits, in which case when the term limit is up the outgoing AD is simply 
not eligible.  But lacking that, I think continuity is good, and the bar to 
remove an incumbent _should_ be a bit higher.  After all, while most 
employers do periodic performance reviews, I know of very few that 
periodically look for applicants with the intention of firing someone who 
is doing a decent job on the grounds that they found someone who might be 
better.


> In addition to
> the "too long in position" issues raised above, this interacts
> with the workload and volunteers problem: Indicating
> availability for one of these positions, and then staying
> available, is itself a big commitment.  That is a commitment not
> just for an individual but for a company.  It is tolerable if
> there is a reasonable expectation of getting the position and
> having an opportunity to serve.  But, if the odds are high that
> the incumbent will be returned no matter what, the incentives to
> get the needed approvals and resources lined up are really very
> poor.  We are hence seeing problems convincing people to put
> their names in the pot against the name of an incumbent who is
> doing even a passable job... and I predict that will get worse.
This is a problem, and it's not.  On the one hand, it's poor that the 
nomcom doesn't have a ready pool of qualified volunteers if they should 
decide to remove an incumbent.  On the other hand, if qualified people are 
not willing to put their names in the pot, perhaps it's because they don't 
think the incumbent needs to be replaced, and that's worth considering.
-- Jeff

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