Re: ADs speaking for "their" WGs
On 2007-04-20 23:58, Theodore Tso wrote: On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 04:56:38PM -0400, Jeffrey I. Schiller wrote: But the more serious case involved IPSEC. The situation was thus: ~20 people for one proposal. ~20 people for a different proposal ~150 people for "someone please decide so we can go off and implement!" So I read the consensus as "We want this solved." I then asked the authors of the two proposals if they could come to consensus by September 1, 1996 (this was in March of 1996). They said they would try. On August 29th I received a phone call telling me that they tried, but could not agree. So I decided. I chose one of the proposals and wrote up my decision and sent it to the WG list. I outlined my decision criteria, and how I viewed each proposal against the criteria, finally offering to publish the "losing" proposal as informational documents. My one regret is that I didn't publish my decision as an RFC. Just didn't think about it. I may dig it out of my e-mail archives and publish it at some point (with some additional historic background) as a historical RFC. The more time I get to refer to it, the more it makes sense to publish it. For people who are interested in reading Jeff's writeup, it can be found here: (nothing ever disappears from the internet :-) http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ipsec/1996/09/msg00096.html Thanks Jeff and Ted. In fact, Jeff's approach and his message were very carefully constructed: "After September 1, if the working group could not decide upon a course of action, then I would step in as Security Area Director and propose one myself. ... I formally recommend, as Security Area Director, that the charter for the IPSEC working group be amended. ... Proposed New Charter..." Quoting myself: Ah, but if the WG *agrees* to accept the AD's decision, that's OK. The rules in 2418 certainly allow an AD to ask a stuck WG "Will you let me decide?". That's very different from deciding unilaterally. I agree with what I think I hear Jeff saying: ADs should be free to act decisively when a WG is indecisive, as long as they remain respectful of the overall goals of openness and fairness. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: ADs speaking for "their" WGs (was: [Geopriv] Irregularities with the GEOPRIV Meeting at IETF 68)
On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 04:56:38PM -0400, Jeffrey I. Schiller wrote: > But the more serious case involved IPSEC. The situation was thus: > > ~20 people for one proposal. > ~20 people for a different proposal > ~150 people for "someone please decide so we can go off and > implement!" > > So I read the consensus as "We want this solved." I then asked the > authors of the two proposals if they could come to consensus by > September 1, 1996 (this was in March of 1996). They said they would > try. On August 29th I received a phone call telling me that they tried, > but could not agree. > > So I decided. > > I chose one of the proposals and wrote up my decision and sent it to the > WG list. I outlined my decision criteria, and how I viewed each proposal > against the criteria, finally offering to publish the "losing" proposal > as informational documents. > > My one regret is that I didn't publish my decision as an RFC. Just > didn't think about it. I may dig it out of my e-mail archives and > publish it at some point (with some additional historic background) as a > historical RFC. The more time I get to refer to it, the more it makes > sense to publish it. For people who are interested in reading Jeff's writeup, it can be found here: (nothing ever disappears from the internet :-) http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ipsec/1996/09/msg00096.html - Ted ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: ADs speaking for "their" WGs (was: [Geopriv] Irregularities with the GEOPRIV Meeting at IETF 68)
Spencer Dawkins wrote: > - what we tell the WG chairs is that ADs have the power to make a decision > for the working group, in order to break a deadlock. Jeff Schiller (one of > the ADs who did the WG chair training for several years) was very clear > that an AD can say, "if you guys don't make a decision by date X, I'll make > a decision for you". If this is not part of the community understanding, > someone should be telling the WG chairs and ADs what the community > understanding is. Yep, I did this... However, the devil is always in the details, and the details matter. On two occasions I stepped in to force a working group (two different working groups) to make progress. In one case I asked if a document was "good enough" and their was weak consensus, but not strong consensus. However the disagreement appeared to be over wording, not protocol. So I asked if the document was "good enough" if the alternative was WG shutdown. Suddenly the consensus was a lot stronger :-) I won't embarrass the WG by saying which one it was... you know who you are! But the more serious case involved IPSEC. The situation was thus: ~20 people for one proposal. ~20 people for a different proposal ~150 people for "someone please decide so we can go off and implement!" So I read the consensus as "We want this solved." I then asked the authors of the two proposals if they could come to consensus by September 1, 1996 (this was in March of 1996). They said they would try. On August 29th I received a phone call telling me that they tried, but could not agree. So I decided. I chose one of the proposals and wrote up my decision and sent it to the WG list. I outlined my decision criteria, and how I viewed each proposal against the criteria, finally offering to publish the "losing" proposal as informational documents. My one regret is that I didn't publish my decision as an RFC. Just didn't think about it. I may dig it out of my e-mail archives and publish it at some point (with some additional historic background) as a historical RFC. The more time I get to refer to it, the more it makes sense to publish it. I will note that I don't believe I consulted with the WG chairs before my presentation, but my memory may be off (this was 11 years ago). However I do know that I had a very good working relationship with the chairs so perhaps this consultation was implicit. Certainly I do not believe that an AD should "surprise' a WG chair in this fashion! But like I said, the devil is in the details. Why did I get away with it? Well here are some facts: o There was strong consensus that a decision needed to be made. Shutting down the WG and walking away was not considered an acceptable outcome. o I was viewed as being an honest broker. I wasn't aligned with one or the other proposal. o I was viewed as having the statue in the community to make such a decision. If not by de jure power, by personal power and influence. o I documented my decision and how it was arrived at. Was everyone happy in the end? Of course not. Part of the nature of leadership is occasionally having to make the "hard" decisions. And by definition, hard decisions are the ones that leave some people unhappy. But I believe it was the right thing to do at the time and perhaps history is showing the wisdom of the decision (or at least of making a decision instead of allowing deadlock to continue). As a side note. I find it a depressing trend in the IETF that we want our leadership to be "process automatons" dancing to a predetermined script. Only acting when there is a clear process to follow. I do not believe any group can be successful following such a course. I believe we need to choose leaders and then let them lead. We expect the IESG to be both technical leaders and process leaders. That is one tough role to fill. So they will never by perfect. However we should permit them to lead. If they abuse their power, then replace them, but don't remove the authority to make decisions and to truly lead from the positions themselves. -Jeff -- Jeffrey I. Schiller MIT Network Manager Information Services and Technology Massachusetts Institute of Technology 77 Massachusetts Avenue Room W92-190 Cambridge, MA 02139-4307 617.253.0161 - Voice [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpr5zn8gidpY.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: ADs speaking for "their" WGs
Brian E Carpenter wrote: > It seems fairly clear in RFC 2418 section 6.1: >|"The Chair has the responsibility and the authority to make decisions, >| on behalf of the working group, regarding all matters of working >| group process and staffing, in conformance with the rules of the >| IETF. The AD has the authority and the responsibility to assist in >| making those decisions at the request of the Chair or when >| circumstances warrant such an intervention." > So the AD *does* have authority *when circumstances warrant*, but > only on matters of process and staffing. And actually only "authority to assist in making those decisions", on request or on their own initiave. > this rule doesn't allow an AD to take technical decisions > unilaterally, but does allow an AD to make a consensus call if for > some reason the WG Chairs can't do so. Yes. Anybody including Chairs and ADs is free to start some kind of poll, and it's up to the Chairs to decide if the outcome reflects a WG consensus. > the quote above does seem to allow an AD to take over for a WG > chair as far as running the discussion is concerned, exceptionally. Sure, for a WG meeting where the Chairs are absent somebody can be the meeting Chair, and if an AD, former AD, or anybody else with a clue about what's needed (agenda, minutes, jabber, etc. ) volunteers it's good. And of course it's better when the WG Chairs do this, in two cases I've watched that it took Harald about 20 minutes to post the draft minutes, complete as working "visible on any browser" PDF. >> if an important author of drafts in a WG volunteers to be an AD >> and gets the job it's ugly if that would force them to give up >> their I-Ds. All areas (excl. "gen") have two ADs, that offers >> some leaway. > That's where recusals come from. Recusals are okay, and losing an editor can be bad (from a WG's POV, maybe the editor is happy to have a good excuse to give up on the I-Ds :-) > And the General AD is at liberty to find another AD to sponsor his > or her BOFs or drafts. I did that. The general area should have two ADs, it could be quite overwhelming for the new AD otherwise. No issue this time, Russ is supposed to know what kind of informal infrastructure he inherited in addition to the stuff you've documented in the procdoc ION. I'd need an hour only to list what I've seen... Okay, I'm a slow typist. ;-) In another article you wrote: | Ah, but if the WG *agrees* to accept the AD's decision, that's OK. | The rules in 2418 certainly allow an AD to ask a stuck WG "Will you | let me decide?". That's very different from deciding unilaterally. Yes, ADs and Chairs should be free to contribute like everybody else. But if they use magic words like "WG consensus", "publication request", "hat on", etc. they better make sure that it doesn't trigger appeals. Frank ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: ADs speaking for "their" WGs
On 2007-04-20 14:44, Scott W Brim wrote: On 04/20/2007 08:35 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: It seems fairly clear in RFC 2418 section 6.1: "The Chair has the responsibility and the authority to make decisions, on behalf of the working group, regarding all matters of working group process and staffing, in conformance with the rules of the IETF. The AD has the authority and the responsibility to assist in making those decisions at the request of the Chair or when circumstances warrant such an intervention." So the AD *does* have authority *when circumstances warrant*, but only on matters of process and staffing. I'm sure Jeff Schiller didn't mean any more than that - this rule doesn't allow an AD to take technical decisions unilaterally, but does allow an AD to make a consensus call if for some reason the WG Chairs can't do so. (And all subject to the regular appeal process, of course.) My recollection is that Jeff made a technical decision and announced it, because everyone agreed the process was deadlocked. I don't recall that he ever "took over" for a WG chair, but there was agreement that the WG was stuck and a decision was required. Ah, but if the WG *agrees* to accept the AD's decision, that's OK. The rules in 2418 certainly allow an AD to ask a stuck WG "Will you let me decide?". That's very different from deciding unilaterally. Sorry to be picky but I think this distinction matters. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: ADs speaking for "their" WGs
On 04/20/2007 08:35 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > It seems fairly clear in RFC 2418 section 6.1: > > "The Chair has the responsibility and the authority to make decisions, >on behalf of the working group, regarding all matters of working >group process and staffing, in conformance with the rules of the >IETF. The AD has the authority and the responsibility to assist in >making those decisions at the request of the Chair or when >circumstances warrant such an intervention." > > So the AD *does* have authority *when circumstances warrant*, but > only on matters of process and staffing. I'm sure Jeff Schiller didn't > mean any more than that - this rule doesn't allow an AD to take > technical decisions unilaterally, but does allow an AD to make a > consensus call if for some reason the WG Chairs can't do so. (And > all subject to the regular appeal process, of course.) My recollection is that Jeff made a technical decision and announced it, because everyone agreed the process was deadlocked. I don't recall that he ever "took over" for a WG chair, but there was agreement that the WG was stuck and a decision was required. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: ADs speaking for "their" WGs
On 2007-04-20 12:07, Frank Ellermann wrote: Spencer Dawkins wrote: - what we tell the WG chairs is that ADs have the power to make a decision for the working group, in order to break a deadlock. Jeff Schiller (one of the ADs who did the WG chair training for several years) was very clear that an AD can say, "if you guys don't make a decision by date X, I'll make a decision for you". If this is not part of the community understanding, someone should be telling the WG chairs and ADs what the community understanding is. This is not how I understood it. It seems fairly clear in RFC 2418 section 6.1: "The Chair has the responsibility and the authority to make decisions, on behalf of the working group, regarding all matters of working group process and staffing, in conformance with the rules of the IETF. The AD has the authority and the responsibility to assist in making those decisions at the request of the Chair or when circumstances warrant such an intervention." So the AD *does* have authority *when circumstances warrant*, but only on matters of process and staffing. I'm sure Jeff Schiller didn't mean any more than that - this rule doesn't allow an AD to take technical decisions unilaterally, but does allow an AD to make a consensus call if for some reason the WG Chairs can't do so. (And all subject to the regular appeal process, of course.) The ADs can appoint new WG Chairs if they're unhappy with the old Chairs, they're not forced to accept one of the Chairs as document shepherd, and there is (or was) a potential dead loop where the reaponsible AD can say "forever" that (s)he doesn't like a WG draft because they're unfortunately forced to vote YES otherwise. But all that doesn't cover "ADs speaking _directly_ for a WG" wrt WG drafts, this would remove the first step in the appeal procedure for WGs. Please correct me if I got it wrong. Speaking for? That would seem strange, even as an interpretation of "when circumstances warrant such an intervention". But the quote above does seem to allow an AD to take over for a WG chair as far as running the discussion is concerned, exceptionally. And yes, that does make the first two stages of the appeal process (appeal to WG Chair and to AD) rather empty. Likely the rules for liaisons are a bit more convoluted, and the rules for WG termination are in RFC 2418 no matter what ION 3710 says. - We have been encouraging greater separation of roles (an extreme case of non-separated roles is a document editor who is also the working group chair, the document shepherd, and the responsible AD for the working group). We've been saying that having ADs chair WGs in their own area is not a good thing. We've been saying that having WG chairs edit major documents in their own area is not a good thing. We may want to provide guidance that having ADs chair WG meetings in their own area, especially where there is no other person acting as chair, is not a good thing, and that the ADs really need to find someone else who is willing to chair the meeting, and who is not involved as the next step on the appeals ladder. Yes. OTOH if an important author of drafts in a WG volunteers to be an AD and gets the job it's ugly if that would force them to give up their I-Ds. All areas (excl. "gen") have two ADs, that offers some leaway. That's where recusals come from. And the General AD is at liberty to find another AD to sponsor his or her BOFs or drafts. I did that. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
ADs speaking for "their" WGs (was: [Geopriv] Irregularities with the GEOPRIV Meeting at IETF 68)
Spencer Dawkins wrote: > - what we tell the WG chairs is that ADs have the power to make a decision > for the working group, in order to break a deadlock. Jeff Schiller (one of > the ADs who did the WG chair training for several years) was very clear > that an AD can say, "if you guys don't make a decision by date X, I'll make > a decision for you". If this is not part of the community understanding, > someone should be telling the WG chairs and ADs what the community > understanding is. This is not how I understood it. The ADs can appoint new WG Chairs if they're unhappy with the old Chairs, they're not forced to accept one of the Chairs as document shepherd, and there is (or was) a potential dead loop where the reaponsible AD can say "forever" that (s)he doesn't like a WG draft because they're unfortunately forced to vote YES otherwise. But all that doesn't cover "ADs speaking _directly_ for a WG" wrt WG drafts, this would remove the first step in the appeal procedure for WGs. Please correct me if I got it wrong. Likely the rules for liaisons are a bit more convoluted, and the rules for WG termination are in RFC 2418 no matter what ION 3710 says. > - We have been encouraging greater separation of roles (an extreme case > of non-separated roles is a document editor who is also the working group > chair, the document shepherd, and the responsible AD for the working group). > We've been saying that having ADs chair WGs in their own area is not a good > thing. We've been saying that having WG chairs edit major documents in their > own area is not a good thing. We may want to provide guidance that having > ADs chair WG meetings in their own area, especially where there is no other > person acting as chair, is not a good thing, and that the ADs really need > to find someone else who is willing to chair the meeting, and who is not > involved as the next step on the appeals ladder. Yes. OTOH if an important author of drafts in a WG volunteers to be an AD and gets the job it's ugly if that would force them to give up their I-Ds. All areas (excl. "gen") have two ADs, that offers some leaway. Frank ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
