--On Monday, August 01, 2005 09:24 +0300 Pekka Savola
<pekkas(_at_)netcore(_dot_)fi> wrote:
...
I think this looks, at the high level, a potentially workable
method in that
it reduces the AD load and creates a separation of management
and review.
thanks
I note that the document does not discuss at all (except that
the panel doesn't deal with them) the AD-sponsored
Info/Experimental documents which are NOT submitted in
conjunction with a standards track documents. What would the
path for these?
Obviously, if the community had an opinion on them, the draft
could (and would) be changed. But my reasoning and assumption
was that, today, we have...
standards track doc ---> IESG
info/experimental --> IESG
|---> RFC Editor
This draft changes _only_ that first line. The IESG can still
authorize publication of WG-produced, or other IETF-relevant,
docs as informational or experimental, or authors can take such
documents to the RFC editor (subject to IESG review as specified
in RFC 3932).
While this would probably increase significantly the chances
that folks
could allow being nominated for IESG or ISRP positions -- as
load would be
lower, and the skill sets required for each would be different
(and not
always clearly found in one person) -- it makes me wonder
about the whole IETF management structure:
* 13-person IESG for management;
* 10-person ISRP for review (plus recruited extra reviewers);
* 12?-person IAB for architectural pondering or whatever
they're doing.
To some extent, where we may disagree is assuming that these are
"management" roles. I would normally not think of the IAB today
as a "management" entity, at least for IETF matters. And the
review panel proposed in the draft certainly isn't. See below...
This makes me wonder whether 35 leadership positions in an
organization like
this is a bit inflated.
With the qualification about "management" (I have fewer problems
with "leadership"), what do you think the size of this community
is, counting not just meeting attendees but everyone who tracks
mailing lists and might contribute. 3000? 4000? I'm not
convinced that one or two percent leadership (management?) is
excessive. Indeed, even when you add in all of the WG chairs
(and that is a management role), probably (i) the management
load is not excessive and (ii) the marginal increase this
additional group implies given the number of WG Chairs plus the
IESG/IAB is pretty small.
Unless we want certain people to move from one body
to the next regularly,
That would defeat much of the purpose of this proposal, which is
to cycle people regularly back into the community.
it might be worthwhile to consider whether some
reductions would be in order; for example, I guess that
maybe IAB could do with 6-8 members.
Deliberately not discussed in this draft, but I suspect that
there is a critical mass of skills and knowledge issue that
would make the IAB a lot less functional at significantly
smaller size.
semi-editorial (nothing big here)
--------------
The panel will initially consist of ten members, with six
chosen to
reflect the skill set of the current IETF Areas and four
chosen to
reflect general, cross-area, expertise. [...]
==> it might be difficult to identify which area a person
belongs. I'd
guess most folks being considered for one of these panels
would have
expertise on multiple areas. Further, many areas are actually
doing very,
very different things (for example, ops & mgt has MIB work and
other ops;
internet has LxVPN and lot of other kinds of works entirely).
It's
difficult to believe that it would be possible to capture a
representation
of an area in a single person...
The notion was to get coverage. That is always hard (one might
claim that, in some existing IETF areas, the nomcom has
sometimes not been successful in finding adequate coverage). If
you have good text to suggest, I'd welcome it.
The IESG Chair is chosen by the IESG from their own
membership, using
a method of their choice. At the discretion of the IESG
and after
consulting with and obtaining the advice of the Nomcom
chair, the
individual chosen as IESG Chair may be relieved of
responsibility for
a technical area and the Nomcom asked to fill the vacancy
thereby
created.
==> did you touch upon the topic of IESG chair as general area
AD? I didn't
see it in any case. While that might be a non-trivial
responsibility, it
should be much less as I guess the main beef of general AD
right now is to participate in the document reviews.
Other documents give the IESG the authority to arrange areas and
assignments of ADs to them as they find necessary. This
document deliberately doesn't address that question.
Personally, I think there are a number of reasons why changing
it would be unwise. YMMD. If so, write a draft.
Note: if nomcom were to select replacements, I guess that
would mean
additional nomcom cycles, which would mean delays, etc. -- so
practically, I
guess it would be better to have a self-selected chair.
The main reason for having an IESG-selected chair is that it
would presumably result in someone whom the IESG could work with
and vice versa. The present process doesn't guarantee that and,
since the nomcom doesn't have good visibility into IESG internal
workings,... well, we have done lots better than we should
expect.
Appeals on actions of the IESG flow to the relevant ADs,
then the
IESG Chair, then the IETF Chair, then the IESG, and then
to the IAB.
==> this kind of appeals chain appears overlong; appeals
already take too
long to process, in different bodies (e.g., a month per body).
Stretching
out a final decision seems troublesome. Couldn't a more
direct path be used?
That is the present process. If you think it is broken, write
text and convince others.
Appeals to the IAB on matters
of approval or rejection of documents are constrained as
they are
under current procedures: the IAB may instruct the ISRP to
reconsider
an action, but may not itself reverse an ISRP decision.
==> Is this true? I have at least under the impression that
IAB can and has
made binding decisions, or at least made statements which look
like such -- see e.g.
http://www.iab.org/appeals/kre-ipng-address-arch-draft-standar
d-response.html (sect 2)
Read 2026. Carefully
editorial
---------
...
Will be dealt with. Thanks.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf