On 10/20/2013 3:54 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
The obvious risk if one separates WG management from review is that one
could easily get the situation where the manager, in working with the
WG, says that the document needs X, Y, and not Z. And then the reviewer
says "needs Z". And there are more extreme versions of this.
Currently, the ability for the managing AD to say "no, this won't pass
muster" is part of his management tool. If he is not the reviewer, he
seems to have lost an important tool. I hope I am missing something
that would make this sort of approach workable.
"Manager"?
Who's that?
ADs do not 'manage' working groups, and frankly neither do Chairs.
Yes, there's quite a lot of management activity done by both, but you've
used the term manager in a way that reflects classic hierarchical
authority models in typical organizations.
And that really isn't appropriate for the IETF, where we say that
working group consensus rules working group decision-making and after
that the IETF consensus rules.
The sort of thing you probably mean is that quality control processes
outside the working group produce concerns and recommendations that run
contrary to, or go beyond, what the working group has done. That's
fine, but that's not (necessarily) done by a "manager". And in spite of
giving ADs a unilateral authority to (temporarily) block progress, the
resolution of concerns is a negotiation, not further unilateral
decision-making by a higher-authority "manager".
The model that has ADs trying to be content experts, in addition to area
facilitators, is exactly the underlying problem here.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net