I would agree that the BOF process could be streamlined. If one examines
the total amount of time required to get a document from an -00 individual
submission to publication as a WG work item, some substantial portion of
that time can be attributed to the WG formation process. It would be
worthwhile to reduce that delay.
In my experience, part of the issue is lack of feedback on what the next
steps are. In that respect, transparency would be helpful -- but only if
it is combined with some degree of formality, so that the objections could
be noted, and addressed. At times the BOF formation process has been
compared with the game of "find me a rock" -- unless the type of rock is
clearly described, a lot of trips to the quarry can be needed in order to
come up with the right one.
Speaking from experience, we should not over-estimate the role that IAB
members play in the BOF process. Yes, they do write BOF reports, but in
the end, it is the IESG that makes the decision and is accountable for
the process of WG formation.
As for "conflict of interest", my experience is that the IESG/IAB is quite
conscientious about such things. Recusal is quite common. However, it's
important not to confuse disagreement with "conflict of interest". An
IESG/IAB member can disagree without financial interest playing a
role.
-----------------
Lakshminath said:
The process issues I am raising are fixable. People need to be aware of
the issues and communicate better. We need to think of ways to force
transparency and remove the bad apples from positions of power as soon as
possible: If a lot of people feel that an AD or an IAB member is not
following process, biased or otherwise incompetent, well then, as painful
as it might be, we need to put the recall process to test. There is no
need to wait until the regular nomcom cycle.
Next, I know a number of people at the IETF who care about our principles,
are passionate about following them and who argue for them, sometimes at
the cost of their careers at their places of employment. Those are the
"IETF."
Finally, whereas I may have examples where things could be better or where
I was unable to get some things done at the IETF, I am raising these
issues independent of any one particular issue or problem. What I am
learning in the process is that some look at all of this from an
"idealistic" viewpoint and think that everything is fine and a few who
think that drastic measures are needed. I am of the view point that we
need more transparency and that we need to introduce more checks and
balances on ADs and IAB members in how they exercise their power. Many of
us will be at the losing end of arguments and that may have serious
implications in the real world; but, as long as the process is fair and
open, and the rules are followed, we should all be able to deal with being
at the losing end of arguments.
I am optimistic that we can make the process fair and open.
best regards,
Lakshminath
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf