Subject: Re: WG Review: Operation of the IESG/IAB Nominating and Recall Committees (nomcom)

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 06:37:47 -0700

At 02:40 PM 4/13/2002 +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
>I have been assuming, that in accordance with usual IETF practice,
>there will be a BOF in Yokohama to guage how much support there is
>for this work to be done, and then perha another in Atlanta to finalise

Sorry, no.

A BOF does not come AFTER an ietf-announce posting of a working group 
charter.  They post to ietf-announce as the last step before making the 
iesg decision to charter the effort.

d/

----------
Dave Crocker <mailto:[email-masked]>
TribalWise, Inc. <http://www.tribalwise.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.850.1850

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 14:40:10 +0700 (ICT)

Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 08:18:28 -0700
    From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>

    I strongly urge that chartering be deferred until there is public 
    discussion and rough consensus on the details of the nomcom process to be 
    considered.

I have been assuming, that in accordance with usual IETF practice,
there will be a BOF in Yokohama to guage how much support there is
for this work to be done, and then perha another in Atlanta to finalise
the charter, if that can't be done on the list ahead of time.

And after all of that, the WG will get formed, if it seems to be needed.

It is (obviously) way too early to know what is on the agenda for
Yokohama though.

kre

---

From: todd glassey <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 08:25:01 -0700

Clearly this is one of the problems with the complexity of the IETF's
process.

A BoF should be available as an option ANYTIME before the IESG votes to
establish a charter or not for a WG. Further a BoF is also a viable method
os sending a message to the IESG as well and so should probably be allowed
any ANYTIME there is no operating group to absorb ownership of a particular
project.

Todd Glassey

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Crocker" <[email-masked]>
To: "Robert Elz" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2002 6:37 AM
Subject: Re: WG Review: Operation of the IESG/IAB Nominating and Recall
Committees (nomcom)

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 13:28:45 -0400

> charter

sorry, no.  there are no such restrictions on BOFs.

zero or more BOF may precede formal chartering of a WG, at any time
prior to chartering the WG.  IESG could even hold a BOF meeting *after* 
chartering a WG. (once in a while I think it might be a good idea to
hold a BOF to discuss shutting down a WG....)

it's entirely up to the IESG as to whether and when to hold any BOF.
the posting of a draft WG charter does not make the WG a foregone 
conclusion - else, what's the point of making such an announcement? 
if IESG decides they want to hold a BOF to gauge reaction to the proposed 
charter, or for any other purpose, they have the power to do so.

Keith

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 10:47:07 -0700

>sorry, no.  there are no such restrictions on BOFs.

OK.  Please cite examples of BOFs that have been held between the time of 
the IETF-Announce request for charter comments and the chartering of the 
working group, absent a firestorm of draft charter criticism.

As a matter of reality it does not happen.  Formality isn't the 
issue.  Actual practise is the issue.

d/

ps.  And it would be more productive for the proposed working group to 
focus on the lack of detail in the proposed charter than to debate 
process.  My point was that an assumption that there will first be a BOF 
before chartering is a misplaced assumption.  There is no indication that 
that will happen, nor is it typical.  Hence it is not reasonable to assume 
it will happen.

----------
Dave Crocker  <mailto:[email-masked]>
Brandenburg InternetWorking  <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253;  fax +1.408.850.1850

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 13:58:44 -0400

> working group, absent a firestorm of draft charter criticism.

Please cite a rule that says that IESG can't hold a BOF after they've
announced a possible charter... or anything else that justifies a
"sorry, no"  response.

A draft charter has been posted.  You and I seem to agree that it's lacking
in detail.  I hope IESG will rectify this situation, and I hope they will
consider how best to do this without worrying too much about precedents.

That doesn't mean that I think a BOF is necessarily the best way to do this.
But there are already too many misconceptions about how IETF works, and 
I don't to see this one added to that list.  

Keith

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 11:11:58 -0700

>announced a possible charter... or anything else that justifies a
...
>I don't to see this one added to that list.

Evidently you missed the latter portion of my posting.  The key trigger was 
Robert's making an assumption that did not have specific basis in the 
current situation.  Assuming that there will be some future opportunity to 
correct something, when there is no clear indication that that opportunity 
will be provided, is a common and very dangerous project management error.

As a matter of practise, the time between an IESG announcement of intent to 
charter and the act of chartering tends to be short and BOFs do NOT occur 
during that time.

One of the more serious misconceptions about how the IETF works is the 
difference between formal theory and actual practise.

d/

ps.  may we now move to discussing remedies for the draft charter?

----------

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 22:11:38 +0200

Dave Crocker wrote:
..
> ps.  may we now move to discussing remedies for the draft charter?

OK. Let's make the first deliverable a list of issues. Actually those
of us who've been debating this on the ietf-nomcom list already have
this list in our heads, but the WG can be tasked to write it down.

  Brian

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 22:47:02 +0200

--On mandag, april 15, 2002 10:47:07 -0700 Dave Crocker 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> As a matter of reality it does not happen.  Formality isn't the issue.
> Actual practise is the issue.

actually it's happened quite a few times, when the IESG didn't get their 
paperwork done in time - everyone agreed that the group should be 
chartered, and the charter was basically fine, modulo a few tweaks, but the 
tweaks just didn't get done in time for an IETF meeting.

Then the WG-to-be formally meets as a BOF.

Apologies - I don't have an example name handy.

                  Harald

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 15:26:51 -0700

>this list in our heads, but the WG can be tasked to write it down.

Brian, it appears that you are suggesting a specification effort that will 
be chartered without knowing what problems it is to solve.  This goes 
beyond having a "requirements" specification at the front-end of a working 
group effort.  It means that the IESG would be sprinkling pixie dust on an 
effort that has literally no meaningful focus or constraints.

That is a tad unusual for working groups, no?

Would it not be better to bring the list out of various people's heads, and 
have enough discussion to formulate community rough consensus on the topics 
to be discussed and resolved PRIOR to chartering, as is more typical in the 
IETF?

(I'm sorry.  I should have phrased that more carefully.  I meant to say 
"more typical of IETF efforts that are successful.)

d/

----------

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 15:17:28 -0700

At 10:47 PM 4/15/2002 +0200, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>chartered, and the charter was basically fine, modulo a few tweaks, but 
>the tweaks just didn't get done in time for an IETF meeting.

This thread is proving to be an interesting exercise aggressively missing 
the point.  So let me repeat it for the third time:

         Robert stated that he assumed there would be a BOF
         that would take place before IESG approval and
         that it would be the place for "fixing" the charter.

My point was that the assumption was entirely inappropriate.  So far, no 
postings in response have countered this basic point.

Even this latest effort at providing mathematical precision merely 
substantiates the point I was making, by noting that the occurrence of the 
BOF was not FOR THE PURPOSE of pre-IESG approval work, but was in fact 
taking IESG approval for granted.

d/

----------

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 08:12:04 +0200

Dave Crocker wrote:
> be chartered without knowing what problems it is to solve.  

No. I'm suggesting that we have plenty of problems already on the table: more than
fit in the length of a reasonable charter. So let's stop the meta-discussion
and continue the real discussion officially in a WG with some speed.

>  This goes

Nonsense. Aren't you the same Dave Crocker we've been arguing with under
the subject field "rejecting candidates" for example? I see no pixie dust there.

> That is a tad unusual for working groups, no?

If it were true. I've seen other WGs that start out by defining a more precise
problem statement.
> "more typical of IETF efforts that are successful.)

I'm sorry. I thought I detected sarcasm and rhetoric for a moment.

   Brian

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 00:23:17 -0700

At 08:12 AM 4/16/2002 +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>fit in the length of a reasonable charter.

Would that line of thinking would be accepted for chartering a technical 
effort, yet technical efforts are far easier than the social/political 
details of IETF process.  If so, please provide some examples, for working 
groups efforts that were successful.

>   It means that the IESG would be sprinkling pixie dust on an

Perhaps your sequitor is not non, but your meaning escapes me.  However by 
way of trying to save a round-trip, here are some guesses at what you mean, 
along with responses:

It is not nonsense to note that the proposed charter is without any 
meaningful guidance for the working group and that such a deficiency is 
normally deemed entirely unacceptable for IETF charters.  In fact it is 
tempting to claim that this is the most content-free charter we've ever 
had, but that would lead to a very wasteful and embarrassing contest.

My guess about your reference to my postings on a separate thread:  You are 
suggesting that my objecting to a content-free charter means that I think 
there is nothing to work on?  Quite the contrary.  And dealing with those 
details will be a delight.

However we need to pay attention to the process that helps working groups 
succeed and we have far too much experience with loose charters -- 
especially when they apply to difficult areas that are far easier than this 
one.

Let's position the effort for success.  In the IETF, that means a careful 
charter.

d/

----------

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 07:06:14 +0200

> postings in response have countered this basic point.

actually I don't think anyone disagrees with you on that point, so we've 
gone off to discuss other things triggered by the exact text you used to 
make your point (as often happens).

fwiw....part of the point of the NOMCOM chartering exercise is to see if we 
can use "small sharp WGs" in getting things done in the rule-making space.
The charter of the NOMCOM WG is certainly more precise and limited than 
that of the late POISSON WG. Specific suggestions for what it should say if 
it was to be even more precise would be appreciated.

                    Harald

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 09:49:18 +0200

1. Effective impossibility for approving bodies to reject candidates without causing process collapse

2. Lack of clarity about role of liaisons

3. Lack of liaison from one of the approving bodies (ISOC Board)

4. Lack of clarity about verification that due process has been followed, without breach of
   confidentiality

5. Risks of NomCom membership bias due to repeat volunteers and/or volunteer pool stuffing

6. Lack of guidance to NomCom on past practice, balance, and turnover vs continuity

7. Administrivia (archiving, overlapping memberships, etc.)

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 06:45:07 +0200

> Apologies - I don't have an example name handy.

We have a number of them in Apps Area. Latest one CDI if I remember
correctly.

   paf

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 21:13:02 +0700

Date:        Tue, 16 Apr 2002 07:06:14 +0200
    From:        Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <596496777.1018940774@localhost>

  | --On 15. april 2002 15:17 -0700 Dave Crocker <[email-masked]> 
  | wrote:
  | >          Robert stated that he assumed there would be a BOF
  | >          that would take place before IESG approval and
  | >          that it would be the place for "fixing" the charter.

  | actually I don't think anyone disagrees with you on that point,

Actually, I do, kind of, because while I did say ...

  | >          Robert stated that he assumed there would be a BOF
  | >          that would take place before IESG approval and

I didn't ever say

  | >          that it would be the place for "fixing" the charter.

Dave inferred that - most likely from the context of my message.
It was perhaps a reasonable inference, but it wasn't at all what I meant
(after all, it was blindingly obvious that there isn't going to be a BOF).

My point was more directed to ...

  | fwiw....part of the point of the NOMCOM chartering exercise is to see if we 
  | can use "small sharp WGs" in getting things done in the rule-making space.

and was (perhaps an inappropriate) reference to how much easier this would
all be if the poisson group had simply continued to exist.   We wouldn't
need to be arguing about charters, whether BOFS are needed ... perhaps 30-40%
of the recent messages on this list could have been avoided, and only the
messages with substance would have been needed.

It isn't as if the people posting messages are any kind of different set
than would have been posting messages on the poised list.   That is, all
that has been achieved so far (it seems to me) is a bunch of extra work
for no net practical benefit.

kre

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 00:31:25 -0400

this list looks like a good start to me.

Keith