Subject: [OPS-AREA] WG Chairs

From: Ron Bonica <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 15:37:50 -0400

Folks,

Dan and I wish to thank Geoff Huston for his outstanding contributions
to the GROW working group. However, Geoff has informed us that it is
time for a change. So, we would like for you to welcome Peter
Schoenmaker and Chris Morrow as the new working group chairs.

Best wishes to Peter and Chris.

                                   Ron Bonica

_______________________________________________
OPS-AREA mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area

---

From: David Kessens <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 16:09:54 -0700

Ron,

On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 03:37:50PM -0400, ext Ron Bonica wrote:
>
> So, we would like for you to welcome Peter Schoenmaker and Chris
> Morrow as the new working group chairs.

Not to question your particular choice of chairs here, but this seems
to be the second time that you don't use an open call for volunteers
for the chairposition of a working group in the Ops Area.

Is there any particular reason that you are no longer following the
tradition of an open call for volunteers for deciding working group
chair choices in the Ops Area ?

David Kessens
---

---

From: Ron Bonica <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 11:19:08 -0400

Hi Dave,

As you are aware, area directors are not required to post an open call
for volunteers. However, since you raised the issue, I would like to
shed some light on the WG chair selection process.

Operators are under-represented in the IETF. We feel this problem most
severely in the *Operations* and Management Area. So, my goal was to
appoint active operators to working group chair positions.

Specifically, I recruited folks with the following credentials:

- currently active as a network operator
- currently active in the IETF
- current and sufficient IETF experience
- good management and people skills

Needless to say, the candidate pool was small. We are still looking for
people who fulfill these requirements to fill positions on the OPS
Directorate and to be candidates for chairing positions that might come
open in the future. If anyone reading this email feels that they fulfill
these requirements and are willing to participate in such activities,
please email Dan and I privately.

                                      Ron

---

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 09:17:26 -0700

> Hi Dave,

I am glad to get network operators directly involved in the IETF,
by any means possible.  I think it is up to the ADs how they want
to get WG Chairs to "work for them".   I would be more concerned about
open calls for solution proposals in a WG, than an open call for
selecting WG Chairs.

Andy

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 12:54:09 -0400 (EDT)

Can you explain how these chairs were selected?

As far as I can tell, they have not participated in the GROW WG, going 
back more than 2 years.

Why not select someone who participates in the working group to be the 
chairs?

		--Dean

On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Ron Bonica wrote:

> GROW mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
> 
> 

-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000

---

From: David Meyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 13:08:41 -0700

> time for a change. 

	I'll second that. Geoff was a great co-chair during my
	time.

> So, we would like for you to welcome Peter Schoenmaker and
> Chris Morrow as the new working group chairs. 
> 

	Ditto.

	--dmm

---

From: David Kessens <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 11:37:27 -0700

Ron,

On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 11:19:08AM -0400, Ron Bonica wrote:
> for volunteers.

Correct. On the other hand, we did establish such a tradition in the
Operations & Management Area in the past few years so I wondered why you
departed from that tradition. I felt that it was both useful in
finding more candidates, but also, even more importantly, it helped us
to find other candidates than the "obvious" candidates, especially from
within the group of active operators. The only real drawback was
that the process took more time and effort for the AD but I felt that
that was really worth it compared to the overall benefits.

I just don't see how this method is incompatible with your desire to
appoint more operators into available positions in the Operations Area
(which was not required either, but has been the policy for a long
time as well!).

David Kessens
PS I prefer people calling me David, my name is not Dave.
---

> However, since you raised the issue, I would like to

---

From: Wes Hardaker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 15:50:42 -0700

>>>>> "AB" == Andy Bierman <[email-masked]> writes:

AB> I would be more concerned about open calls for solution proposals in
AB> a WG, than an open call for selecting WG Chairs.

I'd be most concerned about getting the right person for the job that
doesn't have conflicts of interest with the work being performed within
the group.  That's the biggest problem with not having an adequate pool
of candidates and a potential reason for doing a wider call for
support.  WG chairs should be selected based on their knowledge, but
independence from, the work.  That's a tough role to fill, certainly.
-- 
"In the bathtub of history the truth is harder to hold than the soap,
 and much more difficult to find."  -- Terry Pratchett

---

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 15:59:13 -0700

> independence from, the work.  That's a tough role to fill, certainly.

IMO, It is up to the AD to decide how to appoint the right person.
If that person does not behave appropriately, then there is an
appeals process to address that.  An open call seems reasonable if
the AD has no suitable person able to commit the resources to
do the job.

Andy

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 19:11:19 -0400 (EDT)

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Ron Bonica wrote:

> severely in the *Operations* and Management Area.

I don't know how you came by that conclusion.  It seems to me that some
operators have way too much influence over the IETF and use the IETF to
advance their profit potential.  I'm for more science, more engineering,
and less router-jockey mysticism. Global routing should be an applied
science, not trial by error, and not fanciful claims supporting a few
companies sales of discredited schemes.

> So, my goal was to appoint active operators to working group chair
> positions.

I don't see how avoiding a call for volunteers advances that goal.

I don't see that the present group of participants in the GROW Working
Group doesn't consist of operators, engineers, and scientists more
suitable to the work of GROW WG.

It seems to me a recipe for disaster to place people in chair positions
who are unfamiliar with IETF processes and procedures, ethics, conflict
of interest, and other issues relating to management roles at a 501(c)3
non-profit.  There might be fewer scandals if candidates were chosen
more selectively, and better educated in critical management knowledge.

More generally, there may be a problem with the process by which chairs
are selected by the AD.  Usually changes aren't so abrupt, nor are the
changes so surprising. It seems to be a bad idea to allow both chairs to
be arbitrarily selected by the AD without some kind of review and
genuine qualification.  Otherwise, there is the risk that the chairs
selected are just cronies of the AD, advancing the AD's personal
interests rather than the interests of the ISOC.  There needs to be some
check that the ISOC's interests are being served by the chairs, and that
the chairs have qualifications beyond just being preferred by the AD.

		--Dean

---

From: "GOGWIM, JOEL GODWIN" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 09:03:08 +0100 (WAT)

> companies sales of discredited schemes.
I supported Dean in this regard. We need innovations, scientive changes
the not marketing and profit-making mind-set.

> more selectively, and better educated in critical management knowledge.

Conflict of interest is always a factor for a set-back in any setup.
> the chairs have qualifications beyond just being preferred by the AD.

The goal/mission of IETF need to be promote and maintain in all that we
do. Anything that will deprive this is/are worth stopping.

--Gogwim

---

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 08:08:26 -0700

> the not marketing and profit-making mind-set.

My perspective (as someone working on the NM side of the OPS-NM area)
is that during discussions on whether a particular mechanism in a draft
will actually work or not, it is extremely useful to hear about direct
experience from somebody who actually runs a network for their paycheck.

Three benefits from real experience:
1) Sometimes, things that are not supposed to be a problem, really are.
2) Sometimes, things that are supposed to be a problem, really are not.
3) Sometimes, things that are supposed to be helpful, really are not.

>....

Andy

---

From: Ron Bonica <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 11:14:49 -0400

David,

OK. I'm convinced. In the future I will make a public call for volunteers.

                    Ron

---

From: "Natale, Bob" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 11:28:15 -0400

Hi Ron,

Thanks...I applaud your decision and note that this thread itself has
been an example of openness working well.

One aspect I would like to suggest is that as important as operators
are to the success of O&M Area work, we should also seek out
representatives of significant user communities to lead or
substantially contribute to our work.  While we are all users of the
Internet and, therefore, stakeholders in its operational quality, there
are also large user communities with specialized needs in certain
respects.  Industry segments, governmental organizations, NGOs,
academic communities, consumers, etc.  Given the ubiquity and growing
centrality of Internet-enhanced human activity, we should be more
deliberate and inclusive wrt user segments, IMHO.

Cheers,
BobN

-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Bonica [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 11:15 AM
To: David Kessens
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [OPS-AREA] Re: [GROW] WG Chairs

David,

OK. I'm convinced. In the future I will make a public call for
volunteers.

                    Ron

---

From: David Kessens <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 16:34:51 -0700

Ron,

> OK. I'm convinced. In the future I will make a public call for volunteers.

Thanks for reconsidering your position.

For completeness sake, I believe that this is a good mechanism to use
by default - I do see cases where it is simply not worth the effort.
One can think of a working group that is in it's final stages with
just a single document to go. I am sure that you will be able to make
a good judgement call in such cases.

David Kessens
---