At 11:53 AM 10/14/2014, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
Having read this thread.....
- The IESG considers a structural change to its organization of work.
- The IESG considers that the timeframe for figuring out details of this
change is on the order of a year.
- The IESG thinks that as part of the details of this change, it's unlikely to
add more workload to an area that has quite few groups in the near future.
- The IESG therefore thinks that it should leave an AD position in this area
open for a while.
It's clear that the roles and job descriptions on the IESG are described by
the IESG. It's perfectly reasonable for them to say "this post needs to be
eliminated".
The procedural objections here seem to all be of the form "the IESG should
have told the nomcom this when it sent the position descriptions to the
Nomcom".
Actually, that is one of the comments I made. Another was that the
relationship between not filling the slot and the as yet to be determined
changes was unclear. My suggestion was to complete the socialization of the
changes before interrupting other things.
E.g. if Jari had said: "The IESG has consulted with the APPs ADs and with the
APPs area WGs and has come to consensus with them that its time to begin the
process of closing out the area. As part of this process, we're asking the
Nomcom to no longer consider the APP slot vacancy open and to not fill it. We
expect to have more complete details on this process within the next month or
so as we decide how to handle the remaining groups and workload."
I'd go - "OK - thoughtful and complete. They have a plan. This is one step".
Instead what he said was: "...So we are starting to think about reorganizing
the areas
a bit,..." [Yup there was a whole lot more, but that was the indication that
there was no plan and that the process was only just beginning.] and followed
with
Now consider the timing.
It's October. The new AD (if selected) will be added to the IESG in March, and
will be selected for a period of 2 years (unless he resigns). In July, there
would not have been a procedural issue with this request at all.
So - we're talking about a lead time of 5 months here, and having a procedural
tizzy because the lead time isn't 8 months. For something that (if the person
remains on the IESG for 2 years) will have effect 29 months from now.
That's not really it at all. If there's a plan and consensus to close out the
area, that sounds like it might be a good idea (with more details).
Unfortunately, that's not what the record says. In any event, at a bare
minimum, we've got an AD around for another 17 months in that area who is going
to have to find something else useful to do if everything gets moved.
I'm in a rapidly changing organziation during my day work. When a decision on
structure was reached, it got *implemented* on a timeframe shorter than the
nomcom getting its brief and the IESG saying that "you might want to consider
this point".
The timeframes we're dealing with for changes in the IETF have lost touch with
the needs of the world the IETF operates in; the world has become considerably
faster, and the IETF has not.
What you've described is a hierarchically, top-down managed for profit company
where the line employees have no say in the organizational structure. Do you
really think that model applies to the current bottom-up consensus driven IETF
structure? If you're suggesting changes along that line for the IETF, then
that's a much longer and probably more fraught conversation that the current
instance.
Things take time because consensus takes time. To change that, we'd have to
give the various ADs and I* Chairs and even WG chairs a lot more power to make
broader decisions than I think we've currently granted them.
I, for one, welcome the signs of change. If the change requested makes sense,
do it.
Procedures exist to make the organization work better. Not the other way round.
Procedures sometimes exist to constrain the "management" from doing things that
the "employees" would find problematic.
The other use for procedures is to get pre-agreement (consensus or whatever
appropriate) on what can be done when and by who and how. When those are
brushed aside, good and proper reasons should be necessary and inquiring into
those reasons shouldn't be met with suspicion and disdain.
In any event, given the email from the Nomcom chair, this inquiry is moot and
the non-appointment of the APPs AD is a fait accompli.
Later, Mike
Harald