ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: ADs speaking for "their" WGs

2007-04-20 05:35:18
On 2007-04-20 12:07, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Spencer Dawkins wrote:

- what we tell the WG chairs is that ADs have the power to make a decision
for the working group, in order to break a deadlock. Jeff Schiller (one of
the ADs who did the WG chair training for several years) was very clear
that an AD can say, "if you guys don't make a decision by date X, I'll make
a decision for you". If this is not part of the community understanding,
someone should be telling the WG chairs and ADs what the community
understanding is.

This is not how I understood it.

It seems fairly clear in RFC 2418 section 6.1:

  "The Chair has the responsibility and the authority to make decisions,
   on behalf of the working group, regarding all matters of working
   group process and staffing, in conformance with the rules of the
   IETF.  The AD has the authority and the responsibility to assist in
   making those decisions at the request of the Chair or when
   circumstances warrant such an intervention."

So the AD *does* have authority *when circumstances warrant*, but
only on matters of process and staffing. I'm sure Jeff Schiller didn't
mean any more than that - this rule doesn't allow an AD to take
technical decisions unilaterally, but does allow an AD to make a
consensus call if for some reason the WG Chairs can't do so. (And
all subject to the regular appeal process, of course.)

The ADs can appoint new WG Chairs if
they're unhappy with the old Chairs, they're not forced to accept one of
the Chairs as document shepherd, and there is (or was) a potential dead
loop where the reaponsible AD can say "forever" that (s)he doesn't like
a WG draft because they're unfortunately forced to vote YES otherwise.

But all that doesn't cover "ADs speaking _directly_ for a WG" wrt WG
drafts, this would remove the first step in the appeal procedure for WGs.
Please correct me if I got it wrong.

Speaking for? That would seem strange, even as an interpretation
of "when circumstances warrant such an intervention". But the quote above
does seem to allow an AD to take over for a WG chair as far as running
the discussion is concerned, exceptionally. And yes, that does make the
first two stages of the appeal process (appeal to WG Chair and to AD)
rather empty.

Likely the rules for liaisons are
a bit more convoluted, and the rules for WG termination are in RFC 2418
no matter what ION 3710 says.

- We have been encouraging greater separation of roles (an extreme case
of non-separated roles is a document editor who is also the working group
chair, the document shepherd, and the responsible AD for the working group).

We've been saying that having ADs chair WGs in their own area is not a good
thing. We've been saying that having WG chairs edit major documents in their
own area is not a good thing. We may want to provide guidance that having
ADs chair WG meetings in their own area, especially where there is no other
person acting as chair, is not a good thing, and that the ADs really need
to find someone else who is willing to chair the meeting, and who is not
involved as the next step on the appeals ladder.

Yes.  OTOH if an important author of drafts in a WG volunteers to be an
AD and gets the job it's ugly if that would force them to give up their
I-Ds.  All areas (excl. "gen") have two ADs, that offers some leaway.

That's where recusals come from. And the General AD is at liberty to
find another AD to sponsor his or her BOFs or drafts. I did that.

   Brian

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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>