Re: On the IETF Consensus process

Hi Jeff,

On a first scan of your email I thought to myself, I agree with most of 
it and so pondered about the problem that I was trying to put forth in 
front of the community.  The conclusion was that indeed if everyone 
follows the rules and if the checks and balances work as they are 
supposed to, perhaps there are no problems.  Unfortunately though, our 
system of checks and balances is that people need to object, as you put 
it; often people at the losing end of an argument may object and thus 
may be dismissed.
Consider what happens if a WG chair or an AD's decisions are skewed, 
either intentionally or because they are naturally biased towards a 
particular philosophy?  Often people tend to try and live with it or 
adjust to it.  There is not really a viable avenue to provide feedback 
about the AD.  Appealing (happens rarely) or recalling (never happened?) 
are drastic measures.
Next, I agree that all the decisions are public, but I will note that 
not many people have the bandwidth to know what all is going on (there 
are ADs who don't monitor WG mailing lists on a regular basis).  There 
is also the tendency to be silent hoping that other people will raise 
the issue.
For instance, I had started thinking more clearly about BoF processes 
and how a small set of people can derail a BoF process after I started 
this thread.  A few vocal people at the mic and secret reports from IAB 
members (conflicts of interest seem to go unnoticed) can undo months 
worth of work and the proponents have to wait 4 more months to do 
anything.  There is no reason it needs to be that way.
There is the idealistic mode of operation and there is reality.  We need 
to take reality into account and work on fixing the way we work.
regards,
Lakshminath

On 5/23/2007 2:02 PM, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 23, 2007 12:40:43 PM -0700 Lakshminath Dondeti 
> <ldondeti(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com> wrote:
> > Brian, Scott,
> >
> > Many thanks for your responses, but here are some followup notes.
> >
> > The problem I see is that WG chairs and ADs have a lot of latitude in
> > running WGs or areas.
> This is not a problem; it's a feature.
>
>
> > The possibility for abuse is tremendous
> Not really.  The decisions that chairs and AD's make are all public, and 
> nearly all of the input to those decisions is also public.  There is 
> plenty of opportunity to review what they are doing and speak up if you 
> see something problematic.  There is also generally lots of opportunity 
> to resolve issues informally before the formal appeals process becomes 
> necessary.
>
> > they get to read consensus however they like
> Well, no.  The job of a chair or WG is to judge for what there is or is 
> not a (rough) consensus.  There are a lot of tools available for use in 
> making those judgements, but ultimately the nature of a consensus is 
> that if you claim there is one and it isn't so, then people will object.
>
> > and may advance or block a particular
> > document or work item based on personal preferences.
> Certainly not.  Chairs or AD's may _express_ preferences like any other 
> participant, but are expected to judge consensus on the basis of 
> consensus, and not personal preference.  As I mentioned above, when this 
> doesn't happen, people object.
> Note, however, that both chairs and AD's are also expected to exercise 
> technical judgement.  If a WG tries to advance a document that is 
> clearly underspecified, or fails to meet basic requirements that the 
> IETF has established, or that is otherwise "not ready", then it is his 
> job _not_ to forward that document until it is ready -- otherwise, he is 
> wasting the time of the IESG and of the IETF as a whole.  Of course, it 
> is possible to have a situation in which a technical decision must be 
> made and the chair is in the "rough"; in such a sitution the chair is 
> expected to forward the document anyway, possible with comments if he 
> feels strongly that the decision in question is a mistake.
>
> > The inconsistent
> > behavior goes either unquestioned or explained away as being within the
> > rules.  The recourse is the appeals process which to most people looks
> > like a hammer and thus seldom used.
> Well, quite a lot of inconsistent behavior _is_ perfectly legitimate. 
> Different people have different management styles, and different groups 
> operate in different ways.  Nothing says everything has to work exactly 
> the same every time -- this is an organization of people, not 
> computers.  Our process gives chairs and AD's a lot of latitude, because 
> it must in order for the organization to function.  However, it also 
> includes a lot of checks against abuse, both intentional and otherwise.
> The appeals process is actually used fairly regularly, and it should be 
> noted that the only appeals that come to the attention of this list are 
> generally those that reach the level of appeals to the IESG as a whole. 
> Things that get resolved at the WG chair or AD level are likely to 
> completely escape your notice if you're not involved.  As, of course, 
> are issues that are resolved informally.
>
> > Nothing wrong with it, unless of course, the WG gets used to that mode of
> > operation and demands that everything be decided based on WG consensus
> > (which on spurious issues could mean that a vocal minority gets to decide
> > how things work).
> A vocal minority only gets to decide if the majority consents, or the 
> chair is asleep at the switch.  Being loud does not make one part of a 
> consensus.
>
>
> > Reopening the discussion when there is substantial new information is one
> > thing, but revisiting past decisions every time someone has some free
> > time leads to endless delays.  All I am saying is that we need to have
> > some determinism in the process.
> A good chair will prevent that from happening.  And while a certain 
> amount of determinism is useful, a completely deterministic process is 
> neither required nor necessarily good.  Our process involves groups of 
> humans attempting to reach agreement; often this requires mediation by a 
> human exercising good judgement in order to be successful.
>
>
> > > But they must always add "to be confirmed on the list" and must always
> > > do so - if they don't, it's a clear process violation and can be
> > > appealed.
> > This is one of the things I am trying to get a clear sense of.  How is
> > this supposed to work in case of BoFs?
> BOF's are not working groups, and in most cases, they don't get to make 
> consensus decisions.  In particular, they do _not_ get to decide whether 
> a working group will be formed or what its charter will say (though this 
> seems to be a common misconception).  Those decisions rest with the 
> sponsoring AD(s) and the IESG; the purpose of a BOF is to guage interest 
> and provide a forum for community input.
>
> -- Jeff
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf