[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: constitutional convention

I said some things on the phone that I'll repeat here for the benefit
of the people who couldn't be there (Steve, Harald, etc.).  Folks
from the phone can skip this message, unless you'd like to hear this
again...

I had some reservations when I read Steve's message, but I didn't
figure out what they were until I read Ted's message.

I'm concerned about the fact that we seem to be viewing the changes
that we need to make to the IETF as an atomic set of changes that
can be enacted via a deadline for proposals, selection of
a single proposal, implementation of that proposal, etc.

In actuality, I think that we need to make a number of different
changes that will happen on different schedules, and in different
ways...  Some of them may be single programs with schedules, others
may be carried out on a per-area basis, and still others will be
ongoing changes to how we conduct our work.  Some of these changes
are already underway, and some of them may not reach fruition this
year.

These changes concern different parts of the IETF:  the standards
track processes, the distribution of authority in the organization,
the quality/timeliness of work coming out of WGs, how we manage
the secretariat, etc.

We also need different types of changes that might include:  changes
to existing BCP RFCs, changes in the roles/responsibilities of
existing positions, attitude changes, internal I* procedural changes,
etc.

In my opinion, most folks view the management of the IETF like they
view the wireless network -- you can tell if it is working well,
because you don't notice it.  They don't want to be involved in
directing it, talking about it, or even thinking about it.  They just
want us to do our jobs well enough that they aren't forced to pay
attention to management-related issues.  Except to complain about
the meeting venues, of course... :-).

There is a significant and growing group that is unhappy with how
we have been managing the IETF.  I view the problem statement effort
as useful, because it has provided a forum for that group to voice
their concerns, and to document them.  This will allow us to address
them more effectively.  I think that we should be _relieved_ that
there is no IETF-wide consensus regarding these problems, because
that means that we still have some time to fix them before they
cause a crisis in our organization.

I do not believe that we should create an artificial deadline or a
crisis by a mass resignation.  I tend to like bold gestures, but
I don't think that this is a responsible choice at this time.
The community does not think that we are currently in a crisis
situation, and I see no reason to precipitate one.

Instead, I think that we should figure out a plan to correct the
issues with the IETF (some of the problem-statement issues, and
others that we know exist).  Then, if that plan requires changes to
top-level management seats (I still think it could go either way),
we might consider a quiet and responsible mass resignation, to
allow the nomcom to freely decide who should occupy each new seat.

Margaret








At 10:30 AM 7/21/2003 -0700, hardie@qualcomm.com wrote:
Steve, Harald,
I think you're on the wrong track here. My reading of the Vienna meeting
was that a _very_ large number of people wanted _us_ to fix the identified problems
in the IETF. In my opinion, they didn't want a constitutional convention, they didn't
want a mass resignation, and they didn't really seem to think that the Problem
working group had done that good a job. They're tired of the time this is taking,
and they just want us to get out and do the work. Setting up any process
that results in a mass resignation of the IESG or the IESG and IAB forces a
constitutional crisis that seems to me frankly unwise and, more importantly,
doesn't seem like it answers the expressed desires of the community. If we
let the Problem working group set the process for this, I personally believe
we will be listening to the 150+ on that list instead of the broad community,
and I personally believe that is a mistake.
In short, I heard: "The IESG is the stuckee for this; it should stop
talking and do it".
To get that done, we need a document proposing the changes. I'll
write one, and I encourage anyone else interested to do so as well. I agree that
having consensus on that document before presenting it to the community
is a good idea, but I don't think we need a committee of the whole or any
other sub-set to get that done. We can make it an agenda item when one or
more alternatives have been written. We do a last call when that is done,
and we can ask the IAB for confirmation by appealing the document ourselves,
as a "peremptory appeal". If necessary, we can do the same for the ISOC board.
I think we can do this without that much "sturm und drang" if we
focus on the problems the docs identify, the attitude of the broad community,
and get ourselves away from the negative attitudes and urges of the small
number of belly-achers.
regards,
Ted Hardie