ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Geopriv] Irregularities with the GEOPRIV Meeting at IETF 68

2007-04-19 08:00:39


--On Wednesday, 18 April, 2007 19:08 -0400 Sam Hartman
<hartmans-ietf(_at_)mit(_dot_)edu> wrote:



Geopriv dropped because I'm asking a general question.


    >> AGENDA CHANGE
    >> 
    >> The IETF process allows for agenda changes during
meetings.  At     >> the outset of the meeting, the agenda was
...
I'm a bit concerned that I may regularly be doing something
that the geopriv chairs feel is inappropriate.  I'd lik e to
discuss with the wider community so I can change my practices
if needed.

It's reasonably common that I will try to work with chairs and
key participants in a working group to find ways to unstick a
working group.  for example I may suggest to a chair that some
...

Sam, 

It seems to me that the community has a choice between ADs who
set themselves up, or are set up by others, as all-knowing
authority figures and ADs who try to move WGs forward by talking
with people, mediating, negotiating, and generally exercising
leadership rather than authority.   I believe that the
community's preference for the latter is very clear, especially
from the number of criticisms that regularly crop up in response
to symptoms of the former.

From the material that was posted, I have no way to deduce
whether this was handled optimally.  For example, under normal
circumstances, I would expect that at least some of the WG
Co-Chairs were aware that these other conversations were going
on, rather than being surprised by them.  But I can also see a
number of reasons why they would not be consulted, notably ones
in which the WG is seriously behind schedule and the ADs were
starting to wonder whether the existing WG leadership was being
effective.

As Cullen suggests, if there were clear indications that the ADs
were using their authority to force a particular outcome, that
should be dealt with by immediate recalls.   On the other hand,
if the one or more co-chairs and the ADs have lost confidence in
either other, or in the WG's ability to succeed, some
rearrangement of the WG --by termination, change of leadership
(whether by resignation or "firing"), or significant change of
charter-- would seem to be in order.  But that goes well beyond
the question I think you were asking.

    john


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