Recommendations on adding a second General AD (or "process" AD)

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>]

I asked Brian and John Klensin whether they were seriously thinking that 
adding another AD to the IESG was a Good Thing.
Here's their responses.

---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Date: fredag, mai 23, 2003 11:58:05 +0200
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>
To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Cc: klensin@jck.com
Subject: Re: Please get it done


I'm quite surprised by the strength of distrust some people are
expressing. Personally, I would trust you 150% to run this, but
for whatever reason there is FUD out there. That's the reason
I changed my public mind.

Whatever happens will shake up the IESG sooner or later. And BTW,
whoever takes this job on will be forever contaminated (FUD sticks).
But I think it's better to bite the bullet. I fear that if you don't
act, there will be a symbolic throwing-into-the-Danube in July.
Better that the IESG shows willing before then.

Mileage may vary, of course. There is a risk here of fixing what
isn't broken. But I'm coming to think that there is a bigger risk
in not fixing what is broken (in terms of the IETF's usefulness
and financial health).


---------- End Forwarded Message ----------
And from John Klensin:

Harald,

I pretty much agree with Brian, but have a slightly different slant on it.

Part of the problem is that little Davy Crocker has gotten onto a tear 
about this.  He is off doing his thing -- preaching conspiracy theories, 
trying to organize recalls, blaming a lot of real or imaginary problems on 
you, etc.  While I think most of them should know better, he has apparently 
generated support from people we need on board (e.g., I've heard that Avri 
is supporting his views, even if she hasn't said anything is public).   The 
IESG isn't helping either: in my moderately objective judgement, you are 
stepping in about when you should, with just about the right tone of 
remarks.  But everyone else, with the exception of Randy in the last few 
days) has either been completely silent or extremely defensive.  Dave uses 
the latter to justify the argument that the IESG is conspiring to resist 
change, without acknowledging that your countering behavior should clearly 
identify you as one of the change-encouragers.

Dave certainly isn't the only one, although he is the loudest and most 
articulate (as usual).

So, to me, the situation looks like this:

* Some of the advocates of change aren't going to get their way on some of 
the things they want.  Given that some want more IESG oversight and 
cross-area review and others want more independence of WGs to create 
standards on their own, without review, that is guaranteed.  Some want 
little change and fine-tuning, others want major changes (even if they 
can't identify what those changes should be).   Additionally, several of 
them want particular IESG heads rolling in the streets; one hopes that very 
few of them will be satisfied either.   But there will be unhappy people at 
the end of this process, guaranteed.

* Some of the unhappy ones, probably including Dave, will assume that any 
point on which they don't get their way was the result of IESG distortion 
of community consensus which, of course, their views uniquely reflect. 
Some will just remain unhappy, others will just try to stir up worse 
trouble, probably starting with a serious effort to railroad the next 
Nomcom.   I wish there were a way to win this, but there isn't: undermining 
Dave and his efforts/positions, if possible, would take a long time, and he 
would use the delay to feed his efforts.

* And, while the issue of the time and effort to read in a new person is 
real, if the process is managed by you --or the existing IESG-- and results 
in anything that can be construed as a delay relative to whatever Dave, et 
al, consider an acceptable speed, that will be construed as a sign that 
IESG is overloaded, foot-dragging, and refusing to confront its problems. 
Conversely, if it is handled smoothly, the point may be made that the IESG 
obviously isn't overloaded enough to justify some of the delays and 
screwups in other areas, so those must be due to the fun of blocking 
things.    The fact that those positions are stupid and circular doesn't 
help; again, you can't win this one.

* So, IMO, you need to do something that is completely above suspicion. 
Dropping someone into an AD position who is nomcom-selected and who 
understands (even if only by the tone of conversations on the list) that he 
or she is responsible for screaming loudly in public if the IESG tries to 
block change in any nefarious way seems to me to do that job.   Allocating 
the job within the current IESG membership doesn't.  As I said several days 
ago, I don't think it makes any difference whether that new person is shown 
as an additional General AD or a new area is created.  Dave thinks that 
putting the person in the General area just gives you the potential of 
excessive influence.  I think that is nonsense, and will argue against it 
in public if necessary.

If adding an additional person to the IESG to do this job upsets the 
internal dynamics, we are, IMO, in *big* trouble that goes well beyond 
these issues.  I hope it isn't that bad because, if it is, we may really be 
at the point of needing to blow things up and start over.

However, the amount of IESG effort required to add an AD to a current area 
and the amount required to add an area are identical -- creating a new area 
shouldn't be that big a deal. And it has, IMO, one advantage: if part of 
the concern is that the IESG is already too big, and you add an AD to the 
General Area, you will ultimately have to make a public decision that the 
extra person in that area isn't worth having an extra voice at the table. 
By contrast, if you make up a new area, you can create it with expiration 
conditions (either time- or task-based, or both) and don't need to do 
anything to get rid of it that might stir up more recriminations.  So I 
think you should consider those tradeoffs carefully.

* And I think you should create the position, announce that you are handing 
it to the Nomcom with a plea that they act quickly, and put yourself in the 
position on an interim basis on the grounds that it is status quo, that any 
other move would probably delay things as another AD came up to speed and 
developed working arrangements with the WG chairs, etc., that the last 
thing the community needs is more delay, and that the timing for your 
retaining the job is entirely up to the nomcom (and the IAB approval 
process).