--On Thursday, October 09, 2014 13:53 -0400 Michael StJohns
<mstjohns(_at_)comcast(_dot_)net> wrote:
However, I'm concerned that we are proposing to not follow our
own rules.
The first issue is that once the IETF ExecDir passes on the
vacancies to the Nomcom, there is no provision for the Nomcom
not to fill those vacancies, nor is there provision for that
...
Mike,
I think we have a little bit of a philosophical disagreement
that has a lot to do with what the IETF is about and much less
to do with this particular case.
I spent many years of my life in assorted positions, often
oversight or management, in standards bodies in which the main
(or only) criterion for almost anything --including standards
approval and leadership appointment-- was that rigid procedures
were followed to the letter. To a considerable extent,
technical quality, implementability, relevance to anything
actual users or any likely producer of implementations actually
cared about, and so on were secondary to careful step-by-step
procedure following if they counted at all.
The IETF, by contrast, tended to focus on identifying the right
things to do and getting them done. That meant broad review,
rough consensus, and technical quality of standards and
designing our procedures so that, as long as things remained
open, transparent, and consistent with rough consensus, careful
thinking and good sense would trump arguments for rigid
adherence to narrow interpretations of the rules.
Where the Internet is concerned, in the talk that was arguably
part of the origin of the IETF's current structural and
procedural model, Marshall Rose memorably described where the
model of rigid rules and primacy of procedures over good
judgment led with the phrase "road kill on the information
superhighway".
For the specifics of this issue, I think Michael Richardson's
interpretation of what the Nomcom can do and his response
--whether you agree or not -- shows that we have not yet run out
of flexibility in thinking through issues and trying to put
"find the right solution" first. I can't add much to that,
other than to applaud the direction it seems to represent
regardless of what is done with this particular position.
The more general situation is why, in recent years, I've
consistently opposed efforts to turn guidelines into rules and
to substitute ever more detailed rules for requirements to think
and apply good sense. It may well be that, if and as the IETF
participant profile shifts toward more professional
standardizers and folks whose interests and participation are
limited to a single topic and it becomes harder for anyone who
lacks significant organizational or corporate support to serve
on the IESG or IAB, we will need to become more like those other
bodies and, in particular, rely more on formal rules and
checking for conformance to procedures rather than good sense
and technical judgments supported, where possible, by "running
code". IMO, that would be an unfortunate outcome that would
ultimately lead to elimination of the things that have made the
IETF both special and effective. YMMD, of course.
best,
john