Glen and others -
I wanted to go back and comment on the assertion that Glen made that the IETF
and IAB chairs do not "'represent' [him] or any one other than themselves". I
believe he is correct with respect to himself, and incorrect with respect to
the IETF.
I agree the IETF is not a "representative democracy", the IESG and IAB (and not
the IETF) are probably best described as electoral meritocracies. We randomly
select "electors" from a "qualified" pool which self-selects mostly from the
set of all participants which in turn selects the IESG and the IAB from that
set of all participants. I'm pretty sure that Carsten was using "elect" to
describe that process.
While the IESG and IAB may not speak for the IETF participants, they de facto
and de jure do speak for the IETF. It's a subtle difference, but an important
one. [CF the various RFCs detailing the responsibilities and duties of the
IESG, IAB and their respective chairs, the RFCs detailing the standards
process, and the various liaison's that have been arranged over the years.]
I've noted over the years that the constituency of IETF participants tends to
have bouts with BSDS - back seat driver syndrome, and this is mostly not
helpful. We (referring to the broad set of IETF participants going back 25+
years) have over time evolved and agreed upon various ways of moving forward
for generally accepted values of "forward". Those ways include having granted
the IESG the power to set the standards agenda, the IAB to negotiate and
approve liaison agreements with standards bodies, the IESG to ultimately
approve the standards, and the IESG, IETF Chair and IAB chair to declare a
perception of consensus.
We (the participants) have reserved to ourselves the rights jointly and
severally to comment on all of the above, to be heard on even items delegated
to the IESG and IAB and at times to carp and cavil on every single point of
order. Some of this is good for the process. But we go too far way too often.
In this case, the IAB, IESG and their respective chairs are doing the jobs
we've asked them to do. Russ, correctly I believe, asked for objections to the
issuance of such statement, he didn't ask for consensus. I also believe it
would have been well within the current job description of the IAB and IETF
Chairs to just go ahead and sign the thing.
I think it comes down to this:
If you (an IETF participant) have an objection to the statement, make it here.
If you have an objection to the process in general then - form your objections,
write an ID, and socialize what you want changed. If consensus shows you
correct, it will apply down the line.
If you have a belief that the process has been violated, it's appropriate to
make that point, but give details rather than vague intimations.
If you have an objection related to the members of the IESG or IAB performance,
make them to the Nomcom or offer yourself as a candidate if you think you can
do better or both.
We've - collectively, through process established over many years - selected a
team of our colleagues to perform a circumscribed set of tasks. Efficiency
suggests we should mostly stand back and let them get on with it.
Mike
At 10:06 PM 8/11/2012, Glen Zorn wrote:
On Sat, 2012-08-11 at 17:13 +0200, Carsten Bormann wrote:
On Aug 11, 2012, at 16:41, Dave Crocker
<<mailto:dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> wrote:
consensus-oriented process
Sometimes, though, you have to act.
While a consensus-oriented process*) document could certainly be used to
improve (or deteriorate) the document by a couple more epsilons, I agree with
Randy Bush: Signing it now is a no-brainer.
Grüße, Carsten
*) Well there was a call for comments, and it already supplied the first such
set of epsilons.
That may have to do when time is of the essence.
(That's also what you choose your leadership for.
If we don't like the outcome, we can always decide not to re-elect Russ :-)
Did the IETF morph into a representative democracy while I was sleeping? Last
time I checked, Russ was the chair of a committee of managers, chosen by a
random selection of proles who may or may not have taken the opinions of
others into account in that selection. He was not "elected", nor does he
"speak for the IETF"; ditto for Bernard. If they wish to sign this statement
(with which I, by and large, agree, BTW), that's fine. If they wish to list
all their titles (IETF-bestowed & otherwise), degrees, etc., that's fine, too,
but not if the intent is to imply that they somehow "represent" me or any one
other than themselves. If support by IETF members at-large is to be
signified, then an online petition of some sort would be a much better idea &
much less deceptive.