Hi John,
Thanks for your input. See below, in-line.
Regards,
Jordi
De: John C Klensin <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com>
Responder a: <ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Fecha: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 16:53:51 -0500
Para: <jordi(_dot_)palet(_at_)consulintel(_dot_)es>
CC: "ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org" <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Asunto: Re: Interim meetings planning [was Softwires Interim Meeting]
Jordi,
Let me make a very general observation, based on my experience
with the IETF.
Where administrative procedures are concerned, the IETF
functions well when the IESG is given general guidance by the
community but then applies good judgment and discretion to the
situations that arise. If the community observes that the
IESG's judgment is not good enough, we readjust the general
guidance -- by complaints to individual ADs, by notes to the
IESG, by discussion on the IETF list, or even via appeals if
that is needed. If one or more specific ADs regularly abuse
that discretionary authority, they get abused in return on
mailing lists, in plenaries, in discussions with nomcoms, and,
if necessary, by recalls or at least serious discussions of
recalls.
Agree, but I feel that there is a lack of administrative procedure here,
which already caused some troubles. I'm trying to avoid repeating mistakes,
improving the guidance and making sure the process is more open and fair.
I fear that in this kind of situation (an Interim meeting unfairly setup),
an appeal will not sort out the problem.
By contrast, when we try to write down the specific rules that
should be applied, or the list of rules or steps they should use
in making decisions, and try to reach consensus on them, two
things happen, and happen over and over again:
(1) We spend (I would say "waste", but you may
reasonably disagree) a huge amount of time discussing
both the details of the proposals and whether or not the
proposals are appropriate. In my personal opinion, the
IETF would be a better and more effective place to get
work done if a higher percentage of the community's
energy went into technical work than into discussions of
procedural details.
Agree in that we need more people, and working more in technical documents,
but we like it or not, procedures are needed to make sure that the technical
work can be followed up. Otherwise, we may break our main rule: consensus,
not sure if say here also fairness.
(2) We get the details wrong, resulting in more time
being spent correcting the details of the rules that,
IMO, we might have been better off not having in the
first place.
I really much prefer to avoid problems when they may be too late to get
recovered. Details need to be put in place for that.
In addition, if we get the details seriously wrong, the IESG has
historically responded by applying a meta-rule. That meta-rule
is that their first obligation is to keep the IETF functioning.
And, on that basis, once they conclude that whatever has been
written down and established by consensus makes no sense, they
simply ignore ignore it. That action creates a very unhappy
and unhealthy environment, whether it is appealed or not, but
often may still be better than the alternative.
Not really sure if I've seen a case like the one that you describe, but
really doubt it may be the case for what I'm proposing.
So, for a case like this, I suggest that you might want to have
a conversation, with any AD you think is likely to listen, about
whether the present guidance is sufficient and whether
additional guidance or discussion would help. ADs persuading
other ADs about IESG matters and customs can be far more
effective than any of us writing I-Ds to pin down details. If
there are no ADs with whom you feel that you can have such a
conversation, then I think you need to chat with the Nomcom but
I, at least, have generally found ADs to be receptive on these
sorts of issues... even ADs with whom I generally don't get
along well (not that there are any of those on the current IESG).
Agree, and indeed my proposal was the outcome of a few email exchange with
an AD ;-) He actually suggested to include this in the
venue-selection-criteria document, which for me, and also talking to others,
was not the best choice ...
Let's try to avoid yet another round of stretched-out
discussions on, e.g., how many days constitutes adequate notice,
how to measure the accessibility of a location, what conditions
are sufficient to justify an exception, and whatever other
questions start to arise as soon as one tries to lock down
specific rules. If an interim meeting is announced that is
likely to cause specific harm (as distinct from being an issue
of principles about dates and locations), complain to the
relevant AD and, if necessary, appeal the decision to approve
the meeting. But most of us, yourself certainly included, have
more productive things to do with our time than starting another
one of these procedural debate threads.
Just my opinion, of course.
And thanks a lot for it !
john
--On Thursday, 26 January, 2006 10:02 -0400 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
<jordi(_dot_)palet(_at_)consulintel(_dot_)es> wrote:
Hi Harald,
In my opinion the 30 days rule is a good one, it may be
possible to make it a bit flexible, just indicating 3-4 weeks
before a meeting instead of 30 days. My comment, based on very
recent experience, is that the rest of the Interim meeting
planning procedure must be described more explicitly.
The idea is not to have this in a new draft, or if actually we
want it, make it in specific one, not mixed with anything else.
The actual rules on this are at
http://www.ietf.org/IESG/STATEMENTS/Interim-meetings.txt
"The area directors will evaluate proposed interim meetings
and conference calls to be sure that that the location,
timing, etc. do not unfairly favor some subset of the
...
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org
Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit
Slides available at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the
individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that
any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
information, including attached files, is prohibited.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf