ADs speaking for their WGs (was: [Geopriv] Irregularities with the GEOPRIV Meeting at IETF 68)

2007-04-20 Thread Frank Ellermann 
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

Re: ADs speaking for their WGs (was: [Geopriv] Irregularities with the GEOPRIV Meeting at IETF 68)

2007-04-20 Thread Jeffrey I. Schiller 
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