Hi Brian,
Glad to hear that you see the value in making the IAB reports public. I
think that this is something that needs to happen on an urgent basis.
Please see inline for additional notes:
On 5/25/2007 1:39 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
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.
Sure, we need the reactive approach (architectural policing), but I
think that the proactive aspects (architectural guidance) are also
essential.
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.
That all sounds too political! Most of this should be transparent.
What are people on the IESG/IAB afraid of in sharing their honest views
on whether a particular BoF proposal is bad/ugly/good/ok? Being
recalled? That never happens!
As to picking chairs, why is the BoF process any different than the WG
chair picking process (interim appointments)? The sponsoring/advising
AD may send a call for nominations, may seek input from the community
(some of them may be on I*, sure) and makes a decision. He/she might
write a blurb on why a certain person was selected too.
There is no need for any significant "private" discussion (except for
discussion on personnel, legal and financial aspects). Let's just say
that I like BCP 39's Section 3.6 better than Section 3.2 of 3710.
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.
Having been on the nomcom, my recollection is that people say the right
things in their questionnaires or interviews. So, I wonder what's going on.
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.
Let's start making the IAB BoF reports public! Do we need to write a
draft for this or does the IAB just need to start doing the right thing?
regards,
Lakshminath
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf