On 2007-05-24 20:11, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
On Wednesday, May 23, 2007 06:56:10 PM -0700 Lakshminath Dondeti
<ldondeti(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com> wrote:
...
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.
Sorry; I really want to answer this part, but I'm out of time for now.
Perhaps I'll come back to it next week.
Well, I'll have a go. First of all, advising the IESG on WG chartering is
part of the IAB's job, and in my opinion it is the most important point
at which the IAB can actually exercise architectural influence rather than
just pontificating.
Secondly, some of what needs to be discussed at the post-BOF, pre-WG
stage is intrinsically private: suitability of people to be WG chairs,
questions about conflict of interest on the part of individuals who
are pushing for one or another solution, etc. I strongly defend the
IESG and IAB's right to private discussion on these points. And that
means private email.
Thirdly, IAB and IESG members could indeed have potential conflict
between their (or their employers') goals and "making the Internet
work better". That's intrinsic to everything the IAB and IESG do,
not just to BOF handling and WG chartering. That's why we have
a preference for openness whenever possible, and why we have the
appeals and (theoretical) recall mechanisms.
So, I would see value in the IAB's BOF reports being made public,
as far as their technical content goes, but on the clear
understanding that there will be private communication on sensitive
issues.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf