Re: leader statements
- Original Message - From: Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com To: Noel Chiappa j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu Cc: ietf@ietf.org Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 8:38 PM On 11/10/2013 07:52, Noel Chiappa wrote: From: Arturo Servin arturo.ser...@gmail.com Then we have a big problem as organization, we are then leaderless. I'm not sure this is true. The IETF worked quite well (and produced a lot of good stuff) back in, e.g. the Phill Gross era, when I am pretty sure Phill's model of his job was indeed as a 'facilitator', not a 'leader' in the sense you seem to be thinking of. So why do we now need a 'leader'? We have a collective leadership, which is quite a good system as long as it avoids groupthink, and I think the IETF community is talkative enough to reduce (not eliminate) that risk. But when we're invited to wider inter-organisation meetings, we can't all go, and the ones who do go are certain to be viewed as our leaders by the other organisations. And that for me is the point. Regardless of how we view ourselves, it is also a question of how others view us and, almost without exception, organisations have leaders and will expect us to be the same. If we want to be perceived as leaderless, we are going to have to work a lot harder at promulgating that point of view; and even then, I expect we would fail. Tom Petch Inevitably, it's the Chairs who get invited; up to them to delegate if they want. Brian
Re: leader statements
Randy Bush wrote: What I am saying is that if we that we want our leaders to only moderate discussion we are in a big problem. we are in a big problem, and this is one major part. two decades of lack of coherent architectural oversight is another symptom of this. i'm surprised that we are not overwhelmed with focus groups. randy Maybe it is time for a Draft from our signatories so community can consider the statement from an architectural perspective? It would be useful to understand architectural roots to the statement bearing in Dave's analysis that the call to globalise IANA /ICANN is essentially political. It is likely to have political ramifications but was it driven politically or from some deeper engineering drivers? Christian
Re: leader statements
From: Randy Bush ra...@psg.com we are in a big problem, and this is one major part. two decades of lack of coherent architectural oversight is another symptom of this. I have two issues with your observation. First, while I agree we've been deficient in architecture, from personal experience I can tell you that the I* community is remarkably resistant to architectural guidance (which necessarily involves a rather long time-frame, the kind of time-frame to which many engineers are inherently resistant, focused as they are on the practical, here-and-now). I don't know much about the other levels of the stack, but I can assure you that at the internetworking level, the community has been remarkably resistant to architectural guidance over the last 20 years - and I have the arrows in my back to prove it (the lack of separation of location and identity in IPv6 being only one of the largest). Would attempting to push the I* down a particular path, different to the one that the one it wants to take, have any different result than Kobe? I am not sure. Second, it's not at all clear to me that the people who are best suited to provide architectural guidance are the same people who are best suited to be facilitating leaders. They are very different skills, and to find both in one person, at the kind of high level needed in the I* now that it is responsible for a major part of the world's communication infrastructure, would seem to me to be rather unlikely. Noel
Re: leader statements
On Oct 10, 2013, at 2:30 PM, Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.com wrote: I really think we need to stop behaving as if the IETF is a small group of people who know each other well. Consensus decision-making does not scale well with the number of participants, and if we're going to require consensus on every leadership decision we're not going to get anything done. Now, being frozen and inactive may be preferable to having Jari and Russ go off and make a cooperative public statement about internet governance, but it seems to me that as long as we have recall and appeals processes we have incentives for IETF and IAB chairs, and IESG and IAB members, not to go off and do controversial things unilaterally, as well as a remedy if they do. This seems exactly right to me, with the additional observation that even if we're insisting that the leadership get consensus on such issues as the Montevideo statement, we're still trusting them to find, frame, and bring us the right issues. In other words, it's trust all the way down, and if we don't trust the leadership to identify relevant issues and address them sanely, obtaining that all-but-impossible consensus is just going to leave us with the same problem that people will want consensus first on what questions are worth addressing and how the consensus is to be expressed. Among other weaknesses, this doesn't seem to be a way to demonstrate to the interested participant/observer that we know how to manage the challenges of scaling things. Suzanne
Re: leader statements (was: Montevideo statement)
At 12:27 09-10-2013, Andrew Sullivan wrote: Now, there is indeed a possible issue, and that is that these chairs were attending a chief officer-type meeting: there were CEOs and so on, and (presumably by analogy) the chairs got invited to represent the organizations of which they are chairs. John is quite right that people unfamiliar with the way the IETF or IAB work might interpret the statement along the lines of, The CEO of the IETF said that the IETF subscribes to some view. Normally, the leader of an organization can direct that organization to some end; the Chair is the leader; therefore, the Chair can direct the organization. Of course, that's not how we operate (this is, I think, at the bottom of this very discussion). But others might get that impression. What I am not sure about is whether people are willing to accept the chairs acting in that sort of leader of organization role. If we do accept it, then I think as a consequence some communications will happen without consultation. For a CEO is not going to agree to issue a joint communique with someone who has to go negotiate the contents of that communique (and negotiate those contents in public). If we do not accept it, then we must face the fact that there will be meetings where the IETF or IAB just isn't in the room, because we'll have instructed the chairs not to act in that capacity. There might be some history to the we reject: kings, presidents and voting. Should the IETF change the way it operates? There are advantages to the Chair directing the organization. It is easier to set policy. It is easier for the Chair to negotiate with other organizations. There are disadvantages, for example, the policy might not reflect the wishes of the community. The IETF might have to reconsider whether people participate as individuals or as corporate folks. There is the question of openness. If the IETF were to set policy behind closed doors, can it say that it is open? We don't take working group decisions behind closed doors. The IESG tries to take its decisions in a transparent manner. There may have been a time when it was not like that. As I mentioned previously the IAB [1] is supposed to be based on collegial responsibility. There hasn't been any discussion to change that during the tenure of the last two IAB Chairs. What's different now? The IAB has published statements and RFCs about its positions. The Chairs can exercise their discretion. The members of the IESG and the IAB have not mentioned that they do not have the ability to negotiate under current rules [2]. The IETF Chair and the IAB Chair have not mentioned that they are not able to negotiate due to the current rules. The question of trust comes up every now and then. Responsibility [3] seems to be an inconvenient word on this mailing list. What's the opinion of the persons who are part of leadership about all this? Regards, -sm 1. People outside think IAB has power :-) 2. I chose a word quickly. 3. the state or fact of being responsible, answerable, or accountable.
Re: leader statements (was: Montevideo statement)
As a practical matter any organization that tries to do things with other organizations needs to have some party that can act on its behalf. That is why Ambassadors are necessary. The current constitution of the IETF means that the chairs of the IAB and the IETF have very limited authority to speak for the organization, but of course they have to. I have argued for junking the DARPA constitution for years. It was designed to keep power in the hands of the few while the rest of the organization didn't worry their pretty heads about it. They don't even get to call themselves members. We should junk the noncon completely and the constituency currently qualified to stand for noncon should elect the chair.
Re: leader statements (was: Montevideo statement)
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker hal...@gmail.com I have argued for junking the DARPA constitution for years. It was designed to keep power in the hands of the few while the rest of the organization didn't worry their pretty heads about it. Factually incorrect in a number of ways. The NomComm system was set up to keep personal politics out of the selection process (or at least keep it to a minimum). And it wasn't the 'DARPA' system - it resulted from discussion among a number of people in the IETF. We should junk the noncon completely and the constituency currently qualified to stand for noncon should elect the chair. The last thing the IETF needs is elections. Noel
Re: leader statements (was: Montevideo statement)
First off, we like to be in a situation where past IETF discussion, consensus, RFCs, and current work program guide what the leaders say. I think this was largely the case with the Montevideo statement as well. Of course these are judgment calls. Please send us feedback - I for instance talk in various external events pretty much on a weekly basis, and I'd appreciate feedback in cases where I've done this well or less well. Secondly, there may be times where the leaders might make statements that are suggestions for a future path to take. I do think that is important. The S in IESG, for instance. Often the status of these statements would be obvious from the text I think that we should … Again, feedback is appreciated if we're not being clear. Thirdly, you need to understand that the context of the discussion or statements matters a lot from a practical perspective. If I talk to the press, I have very little opportunity to finesse what the final message is. If we talk to other organisations it is in practice difficult to arrange for simultaneous editing by a large group of people. Or get all nuances exactly as you want them. But the best model is to have whatever we say supported by earlier discussions. But I hope that we can use our own words. If we support open standards at the IETF or we have a working group on HTTP 2.0, I need to be able to say so. In short, my hope at least is that I can speak about IETF matters that are decided obvious openly, that I can make suggestions on future paths in some contexts, and that where we see a need to make new substantive consensus calls, we actually run them with the usual IETF process. And we appreciate feedback - there will be mistakes, for which I apologize. And I hope we all understand how important communication with the external world is. Jari - speaking as himself only
Re: leader statements
the leaders are there to inform and moderate the discussion and where possible, indicate that consensus has been reached (or not).when leaders speak out on behalf of organization -particularly- this organization and they are _NOT_ relaying the consensus of the group at large, they have exceeded their remit. glossing over or ignoring conflicting opinions simply because it does not reflect the leader bias is demonstrable - often to serious harm to an otherwise worthy effort. Chairs should _NOT_ presume to speak for an organization without consultation. Concerns about being in the room reflect a serious insecurity in the type and quality of work that we are supposed to be producing. /bill On 9October2013Wednesday, at 13:02, Brian E Carpenter wrote: On 10/10/2013 08:27, Andrew Sullivan wrote: ... What I am not sure about is whether people are willing to accept the chairs acting in that sort of leader of organization role. If we do accept it, then I think as a consequence some communications will happen without consultation. For a CEO is not going to agree to issue a joint communiqué with someone who has to go negotiate the contents of that communiqué (and negotiate those contents in public). If we do not accept it, then we must face the fact that there will be meetings where the IETF or IAB just isn't in the room, because we'll have instructed the chairs not to act in that capacity. I've been there in the past, as IAB Chair, ISOC Board Chairman, and IETF Chair. Either we trust our current and future chairs, on certain occasions, to speak in our name without there being a discursive debate in advance, or we will have no voice on those occasions. If there was a pattern of I* chairs subscribing to statements that the relevant community clearly found quite outrageous, there might be an argument for having no voice. I suggest that there is no such pattern. There may be quibbles over wording sometimes, but that is inevitable when several different stakeholder organisations have to agree on wording. The wording is inevitably a compromise; it can't be otherwise. It's perfectly reasonable to ask our chairs to invite debate in advance when that is possible; but in many of these cases, it simply isn't. It's also perfectly reasonable that people should comment on the wording even after it's set in stone; that helps us to do better next time. If we nominate good candidates for our leadership positions, and send thoughtful comments to the NomCom (and the IESG and IAB for their nominating duties), we won't get leaders who put their names to anything outrageous. We should trust our chairs to act as figureheads and leaders towards the outside world. Brian Carpenter
Re: leader statements
Then we have a big problem as organization, we are then leaderless. That is not good for the IETF and it reflects that we are not ready for the dynamics of the Internet that we created. .as On 10/10/13 3:49 PM, manning bill wrote: the leaders are there to inform and moderate the discussion and where possible, indicate that consensus has been reached (or not).when leaders speak out on behalf of organization -particularly- this organization and they are _NOT_ relaying the consensus of the group at large, they have exceeded their remit. glossing over or ignoring conflicting opinions simply because it does not reflect the leader bias is demonstrable - often to serious harm to an otherwise worthy effort. Chairs should _NOT_ presume to speak for an organization without consultation. Concerns about being in the room reflect a serious insecurity in the type and quality of work that we are supposed to be producing. /bill On 9October2013Wednesday, at 13:02, Brian E Carpenter wrote: On 10/10/2013 08:27, Andrew Sullivan wrote: ... What I am not sure about is whether people are willing to accept the chairs acting in that sort of leader of organization role. If we do accept it, then I think as a consequence some communications will happen without consultation. For a CEO is not going to agree to issue a joint communiqué with someone who has to go negotiate the contents of that communiqué (and negotiate those contents in public). If we do not accept it, then we must face the fact that there will be meetings where the IETF or IAB just isn't in the room, because we'll have instructed the chairs not to act in that capacity. I've been there in the past, as IAB Chair, ISOC Board Chairman, and IETF Chair. Either we trust our current and future chairs, on certain occasions, to speak in our name without there being a discursive debate in advance, or we will have no voice on those occasions. If there was a pattern of I* chairs subscribing to statements that the relevant community clearly found quite outrageous, there might be an argument for having no voice. I suggest that there is no such pattern. There may be quibbles over wording sometimes, but that is inevitable when several different stakeholder organisations have to agree on wording. The wording is inevitably a compromise; it can't be otherwise. It's perfectly reasonable to ask our chairs to invite debate in advance when that is possible; but in many of these cases, it simply isn't. It's also perfectly reasonable that people should comment on the wording even after it's set in stone; that helps us to do better next time. If we nominate good candidates for our leadership positions, and send thoughtful comments to the NomCom (and the IESG and IAB for their nominating duties), we won't get leaders who put their names to anything outrageous. We should trust our chairs to act as figureheads and leaders towards the outside world. Brian Carpenter
Re: leader statements (was: Montevideo statement)
On 10October2013Thursday, at 1:30, SM wrote: At 12:27 09-10-2013, Andrew Sullivan wrote: Now, there is indeed a possible issue, and that is that these chairs were attending a chief officer-type meeting: there were CEOs and so on, and (presumably by analogy) the chairs got invited to represent the organizations of which they are chairs. John is quite right that people unfamiliar with the way the IETF or IAB work might interpret the statement along the lines of, The CEO of the IETF said that the IETF subscribes to some view. Normally, the leader of an organization can direct that organization to some end; the Chair is the leader; therefore, the Chair can direct the organization. Of course, that's not how we operate (this is, I think, at the bottom of this very discussion). But others might get that impression. What I am not sure about is whether people are willing to accept the chairs acting in that sort of leader of organization role. If we do accept it, then I think as a consequence some communications will happen without consultation. For a CEO is not going to agree to issue a joint communique with someone who has to go negotiate the contents of that communique (and negotiate those contents in public). If we do not accept it, then we must face the fact that there will be meetings where the IETF or IAB just isn't in the room, because we'll have instructed the chairs not to act in that capacity. There might be some history to the we reject: kings, presidents and voting. Should the IETF change the way it operates? There are advantages to the Chair directing the organization. It is easier to set policy. It is easier for the Chair to negotiate with other organizations. There are disadvantages, for example, the policy might not reflect the wishes of the community. The IETF might have to reconsider whether people participate as individuals or as corporate folks. There is the question of openness. If the IETF were to set policy behind closed doors, can it say that it is open? We don't take working group decisions behind closed doors. The IESG tries to take its decisions in a transparent manner. There may have been a time when it was not like that. As I mentioned previously the IAB [1] is supposed to be based on collegial responsibility. There hasn't been any discussion to change that during the tenure of the last two IAB Chairs. What's different now? The IAB has published statements and RFCs about its positions. The Chairs can exercise their discretion. The members of the IESG and the IAB have not mentioned that they do not have the ability to negotiate under current rules [2]. The IETF Chair and the IAB Chair have not mentioned that they are not able to negotiate due to the current rules. The question of trust comes up every now and then. Responsibility [3] seems to be an inconvenient word on this mailing list. What's the opinion of the persons who are part of leadership about all this? Regards, -sm well, I will stand up and claim to be part of the leadership - since this supposed to be a bottom up organization. the IETF has changed the way it works and we see other fora come into existence that reflect a true bottom up approach. If we (the affected community) feel that a top down approach would be for the best, going forward, I see no better top-down organization than the ITU-T.The community will decide the relevance of a group that ignores or dismisses their needs. /bill 1. People outside think IAB has power :-) 2. I chose a word quickly. 3. the state or fact of being responsible, answerable, or accountable.
Re: leader statements
On 10/10/13 9:49 AM, manning bill wrote: the leaders are there to inform and moderate the discussion and where possible, indicate that consensus has been reached (or not). when leaders speak out on behalf of organization -particularly- this organization and they are _NOT_ relaying the consensus of the group at large, they have exceeded their remit. I really think we need to stop behaving as if the IETF is a small group of people who know each other well. Consensus decision-making does not scale well with the number of participants, and if we're going to require consensus on every leadership decision we're not going to get anything done. Now, being frozen and inactive may be preferable to having Jari and Russ go off and make a cooperative public statement about internet governance, but it seems to me that as long as we have recall and appeals processes we have incentives for IETF and IAB chairs, and IESG and IAB members, not to go off and do controversial things unilaterally, as well as a remedy if they do. Melinda
Re: leader statements
Hello, On 10/10/13 4:30 PM, Melinda Shore wrote: On 10/10/13 9:49 AM, manning bill wrote: the leaders are there to inform and moderate the discussion and where possible, indicate that consensus has been reached (or not). when leaders speak out on behalf of organization -particularly- this organization and they are _NOT_ relaying the consensus of the group at large, they have exceeded their remit. I really think we need to stop behaving as if the IETF is a small group of people who know each other well. Consensus decision-making does not scale well with the number of participants, and if we're going to require consensus on every leadership decision we're not going to get anything done. Couldn't be more true. If we want the IETF to have a voice on the larger stage then we need to trust the people we appoint. While having a public consultation period would be ideal we need to understand, and come to terms with, the fact that it will not be possible to have this in all cases. Now, being frozen and inactive may be preferable to having Jari and Russ go off and make a cooperative public statement about internet governance, but it seems to me that as long as we have recall and appeals processes we have incentives for IETF and IAB chairs, and IESG and IAB members, not to go off and do controversial things unilaterally, as well as a remedy if they do. So true, again. Melinda Carlos
Re: leader statements
From: Arturo Servin arturo.ser...@gmail.com Then we have a big problem as organization, we are then leaderless. I'm not sure this is true. The IETF worked quite well (and produced a lot of good stuff) back in, e.g. the Phill Gross era, when I am pretty sure Phill's model of his job was indeed as a 'facilitator', not a 'leader' in the sense you seem to be thinking of. So why do we now need a 'leader'? Noel
Re: leader statements
On 10/10/13 10:52 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote: I'm not sure this is true. The IETF worked quite well (and produced a lot of good stuff) back in, e.g. the Phill Gross era, when I am pretty sure Phill's model of his job was indeed as a 'facilitator', not a 'leader' in the sense you seem to be thinking of. So why do we now need a 'leader'? Because we've got more than 120 working groups, thousands of participants, and the internet is now part of the world's communications infrastructure. I don't like hierarchy but I don't know how to scale up the organization without it. Melinda
Re: leader statements
From: Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.com The IETF worked quite well (and produced a lot of good stuff) back in, e.g. the Phill Gross era, when I am pretty sure Phill's model of his job was indeed as a 'facilitator', not a 'leader' in the sense you seem to be thinking of. Because we've got more than 120 working groups, thousands of participants ... I don't like hierarchy but I don't know how to scale up the organization without it. I don't believe this necessarily invalidates my point. Yes, a larger organization will need to make organizational changes (scaling factors apply not just in protocols), but it is not at all clear that this includes changing the role of the leaders from 'facilitators' to 'they chose the direction, the rest of us follow' (which is what the original post seemed to imply was needed). Noel
Re: leader statements
On 11/10/2013 07:52, Noel Chiappa wrote: From: Arturo Servin arturo.ser...@gmail.com Then we have a big problem as organization, we are then leaderless. I'm not sure this is true. The IETF worked quite well (and produced a lot of good stuff) back in, e.g. the Phill Gross era, when I am pretty sure Phill's model of his job was indeed as a 'facilitator', not a 'leader' in the sense you seem to be thinking of. So why do we now need a 'leader'? We have a collective leadership, which is quite a good system as long as it avoids groupthink, and I think the IETF community is talkative enough to reduce (not eliminate) that risk. But when we're invited to wider inter-organisation meetings, we can't all go, and the ones who do go are certain to be viewed as our leaders by the other organisations. Inevitably, it's the Chairs who get invited; up to them to delegate if they want. Brian
Re: leader statements
To have a leader there must be followers. Ergo there are no IETF leader statements.
Re: consensus, was leader statements
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Because we've got more than 120 working groups, thousands of participants, and the internet is now part of the world's communications infrastructure. I don't like hierarchy but I don't know how to scale up the organization without it. There are largish organizations that work by consensus, notably Quaker meetings and their regional and national organizations. But we are not like the Quakers. For one thing, they have long standing traditions of how consensus works, including a tradition of standing aside and not blocking consensus if you disagee but see that most people agree in good faith. For another, they are very, very patient. The meeting in Ithaca NY, near where I live, took ten years to decide about getting their own meeting house rather than rented space. I don't see us as that disciplined or that patient (including myself, I'm not a Quaker, but married to one.) So it is a reasonable question how an organization like the IETF can govern itself. My inclination is to be careful in the choice of leadership, and then trust the leaders to act reasonably. R's, John -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.21 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAlJXA2oACgkQkEiFRdeC/kXbFACfYcKTHPfjK3yFvyGvydHZB0jx z6AAn23U7x2tygklXyGav0DuYWjEdAvV =s3DJ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: leader statements
On Oct 10, 2013, at 1:52 PM, j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) wrote: From: Arturo Servin arturo.ser...@gmail.com Then we have a big problem as organization, we are then leaderless. I'm not sure this is true. The IETF worked quite well (and produced a lot of good stuff) back in, e.g. the Phill Gross era, when I am pretty sure Phill's model of his job was indeed as a 'facilitator', not a 'leader' in the sense you seem to be thinking of. So why do we now need a 'leader'? Agreed. To quote Alan Greenspan about the 2008 economic debacle- And the answer is that we're not smart enough as people. We just cannot see events that far in advance. And unless we can, it's very difficult to look back and say, why didn't we catch something? Couple human limitations with a desire to accept questionable justifications at bypassing concerns driven by leadership notoriety for pushing a group's agenda. A common symptom is to declare objections to be from an aberrant individual, even when also expressed by others. The IETF must remain critical of its process and its leadership to better avoid future debacles. Regards, Douglas Otis
Re: leader statements
Just to clarify, I am no saying that today we are leaderless. In fact I think we have a very good leadership. What I am saying is that if we that we want our leaders to only moderate discussion we are in a big problem. Regards, as On 10/10/13 4:52 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote: From: Arturo Servin arturo.ser...@gmail.com Then we have a big problem as organization, we are then leaderless. I'm not sure this is true. The IETF worked quite well (and produced a lot of good stuff) back in, e.g. the Phill Gross era, when I am pretty sure Phill's model of his job was indeed as a 'facilitator', not a 'leader' in the sense you seem to be thinking of. So why do we now need a 'leader'? Noel
Re: leader statements
What I am saying is that if we that we want our leaders to only moderate discussion we are in a big problem. we are in a big problem, and this is one major part. two decades of lack of coherent architectural oversight is another symptom of this. i'm surprised that we are not overwhelmed with focus groups. randy
leader statements (was: Montevideo statement)
Dear colleagues, Once again, I'm speaking only for myself. I think there is an important matter here for the IETF community to think about, particularly as the Nomcom is _right now_ seeking nominees for open positions. I want to be very careful to emphasise that I do not intend to specify a preference for how things should go. This is because I am currently the IAB's liaison to the nomcom, and I therefore think it's important to avoid expressing my personal preferences in this case. But I encourage people to talk to the nomcom about their views on this general topic. (Also, if you have views about this, you might want to consider standing for an open IESG or IAB position.) So, On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 10:00:39AM -0400, John C Klensin wrote: this is a press release. It would be naive at best to assume that its intended audience would look at it and say Ah. A bunch of people with leadership roles in important Internet organizations happened to be in the same place and decided to make a statement in their individual capacities. Not only does it not read that way, but there are conventions for delivering the individual capacity message, including prominent use of phrases like for identification only. I don't think that individual capacity is what the identified people were doing at that meeting. They went to the meeting _as the chairs_ of the IAB and the IETF. Therefore, it is quite appropriate that they (but they alone) sign the statement in their capacity as chairs. And under those circumstances, I don't actually see what feedback about the statement could be appropriate. They did something, as chairs. They make a statement, as chairs, about it. Someone else's thoughts about what the meeting should have been about are certainly appropriate topics for discussion; but I don't see why those thoughts should affect the contents of a statement about the actual meeting that happened. Now, there is indeed a possible issue, and that is that these chairs were attending a chief officer-type meeting: there were CEOs and so on, and (presumably by analogy) the chairs got invited to represent the organizations of which they are chairs. John is quite right that people unfamiliar with the way the IETF or IAB work might interpret the statement along the lines of, The CEO of the IETF said that the IETF subscribes to some view. Normally, the leader of an organization can direct that organization to some end; the Chair is the leader; therefore, the Chair can direct the organization. Of course, that's not how we operate (this is, I think, at the bottom of this very discussion). But others might get that impression. What I am not sure about is whether people are willing to accept the chairs acting in that sort of leader of organization role. If we do accept it, then I think as a consequence some communications will happen without consultation. For a CEO is not going to agree to issue a joint communiqué with someone who has to go negotiate the contents of that communiqué (and negotiate those contents in public). If we do not accept it, then we must face the fact that there will be meetings where the IETF or IAB just isn't in the room, because we'll have instructed the chairs not to act in that capacity. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com
Re: leader statements
On 10/10/2013 08:27, Andrew Sullivan wrote: ... What I am not sure about is whether people are willing to accept the chairs acting in that sort of leader of organization role. If we do accept it, then I think as a consequence some communications will happen without consultation. For a CEO is not going to agree to issue a joint communiqué with someone who has to go negotiate the contents of that communiqué (and negotiate those contents in public). If we do not accept it, then we must face the fact that there will be meetings where the IETF or IAB just isn't in the room, because we'll have instructed the chairs not to act in that capacity. I've been there in the past, as IAB Chair, ISOC Board Chairman, and IETF Chair. Either we trust our current and future chairs, on certain occasions, to speak in our name without there being a discursive debate in advance, or we will have no voice on those occasions. If there was a pattern of I* chairs subscribing to statements that the relevant community clearly found quite outrageous, there might be an argument for having no voice. I suggest that there is no such pattern. There may be quibbles over wording sometimes, but that is inevitable when several different stakeholder organisations have to agree on wording. The wording is inevitably a compromise; it can't be otherwise. It's perfectly reasonable to ask our chairs to invite debate in advance when that is possible; but in many of these cases, it simply isn't. It's also perfectly reasonable that people should comment on the wording even after it's set in stone; that helps us to do better next time. If we nominate good candidates for our leadership positions, and send thoughtful comments to the NomCom (and the IESG and IAB for their nominating duties), we won't get leaders who put their names to anything outrageous. We should trust our chairs to act as figureheads and leaders towards the outside world. Brian Carpenter
Re: leader statements
There should be known limits for chairs, leaders, only if the procedures have mentioned no limits of representation. Trust is there but still there is also levels and limits for trust and representation. AB On Wednesday, October 9, 2013, Brian E Carpenter wrote: On 10/10/2013 08:27, Andrew Sullivan wrote: ... What I am not sure about is whether people are willing to accept the chairs acting in that sort of leader of organization role. If we do accept it, then I think as a consequence some communications will happen without consultation. For a CEO is not going to agree to issue a joint communiqué with someone who has to go negotiate the contents of that communiqué (and negotiate those contents in public). If we do not accept it, then we must face the fact that there will be meetings where the IETF or IAB just isn't in the room, because we'll have instructed the chairs not to act in that capacity. I've been there in the past, as IAB Chair, ISOC Board Chairman, and IETF Chair. Either we trust our current and future chairs, on certain occasions, to speak in our name without there being a discursive debate in advance, or we will have no voice on those occasions. If there was a pattern of I* chairs subscribing to statements that the relevant community clearly found quite outrageous, there might be an argument for having no voice. I suggest that there is no such pattern. There may be quibbles over wording sometimes, but that is inevitable when several different stakeholder organisations have to agree on wording. The wording is inevitably a compromise; it can't be otherwise. It's perfectly reasonable to ask our chairs to invite debate in advance when that is possible; but in many of these cases, it simply isn't. It's also perfectly reasonable that people should comment on the wording even after it's set in stone; that helps us to do better next time. If we nominate good candidates for our leadership positions, and send thoughtful comments to the NomCom (and the IESG and IAB for their nominating duties), we won't get leaders who put their names to anything outrageous. We should trust our chairs to act as figureheads and leaders towards the outside world. Brian Carpenter
Re: leader statements
* Brian E Carpenter wrote: Either we trust our current and future chairs, on certain occasions, to speak in our name without there being a discursive debate in advance, or we will have no voice on those occasions. We should think before we speak, and discursive debate is our collective thought process. Accordingly I would expect Chairs to anticipate and fa- cilitate debates that might be necessary or useful, especially on issues where they find giving the collective a voice may be important. It seems implausible to me that there would be notably many such occasions. Maybe because as German I am inclined towards disregarding phatic expressions. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjo...@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Re: leader statements
Björn, On 10/10/2013 10:21, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: * Brian E Carpenter wrote: Either we trust our current and future chairs, on certain occasions, to speak in our name without there being a discursive debate in advance, or we will have no voice on those occasions. We should think before we speak, and discursive debate is our collective thought process. Accordingly I would expect Chairs to anticipate and fa- cilitate debates that might be necessary or useful, especially on issues where they find giving the collective a voice may be important. It seems implausible to me that there would be notably many such occasions. Maybe because as German I am inclined towards disregarding phatic expressions. I assure you that after looking up phatic I feel the same way. And I agree with your point: when there's time to consult the community, of course it should be done. But sometimes there isn't time, which is when IMHO we should show some trust in our various Chairs. Brian
Re: leader statements
Discursive debate in advance is for establishing principles, and establishing the level of trust invested in someone. Then you let them go to do the job you chose them for. If an issue is of such weight that it requires a lot of discussion, and you chose the right people, they will know that already. On Oct 9, 2013 3:43 PM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote: Björn, On 10/10/2013 10:21, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: * Brian E Carpenter wrote: Either we trust our current and future chairs, on certain occasions, to speak in our name without there being a discursive debate in advance, or we will have no voice on those occasions. We should think before we speak, and discursive debate is our collective thought process. Accordingly I would expect Chairs to anticipate and fa- cilitate debates that might be necessary or useful, especially on issues where they find giving the collective a voice may be important. It seems implausible to me that there would be notably many such occasions. Maybe because as German I am inclined towards disregarding phatic expressions. I assure you that after looking up phatic I feel the same way. And I agree with your point: when there's time to consult the community, of course it should be done. But sometimes there isn't time, which is when IMHO we should show some trust in our various Chairs. Brian
