WG management (was Re: WG Review: IPv6 Operations (v6ops) )

[Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>]

This is a bit off topic, but I want to respond anyway.

"Bound, Jim" <Jim.Bound@hp.com> writes:

> Don't get me wrong I would love to see the IETF move faster, better,
> and lately in a more fair process.  And one thing that would really
> help is something I said to Scott Bradner (one of the area directors
> I keep voting for fyi and him an allison run one of the most
> efficient areas in the IETF and why I have hopes for RDMA in the
> IETF) at a plenary about 2 years ago is: "It is imperative that
> "consistency" be used across the IETF.

I am in support of consistency, where it make sense. 

> For example lets take the silence vs no silence for consensus in a
> working group. One does one thing the other does the other.

There are good reasons for this. In some WGs, the WG never says
(hardly) anything, even when something seems like a bad or even
dangerous idea. The WG chairs (and ADs) are supposed to ensure that
specs are baked and won't cause problems when deployed. So, asking for
explicit support is a useful tool to force people to come out and say
"I have looked at this, and I think it is good stuff". One doesn't
always need this. It depends on the WG and the specific document at
hand. I (as an AD) have asked to see explicit WG support when I have
concerns about a document and it seems like nobody is actually looking
at the document and it seems like a document is moving forward only
because nobody seems to be objecting. If no one is willing to speak up
on behalf of a document (other than the authors) that is often cause
for concern...

> For processes of governing I think this should be consistent whether
> I am working on IPv6 transition or Routing or SCTP.  It is not
> today.  Also Area Directors need to be more like "managers" than
> "engineers". And leave technical work to us in the working group
> and the chairs. 

ADs are (and need to be) both. ADs certainly believe they are
obligated to ensure that specs are baked and complete from a technical
perspective. This is not just a managerial function, it requires being
able to do technical assessments and reviews. The motivation comes
straight out of RFC 2026.

If the ADs don't intervene when there are technical problems with a
document, who will?

Thomas