Subject: IETF Chair tasks

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 10:49:50 +0200

Hi,

I'd be interested to know if anyone has comments on
draft-carpenter-ietf-chair-tasks-00.txt:

    This document describes tasks performed by the IETF Chair, the IESG
    Chair, and the Area Director of the General Area of the IETF.  Its
    purpose is to inform the community of what these tasks are, and to
    allow the community to consider whether combining all these roles in
    one person is optimal.

In particular, with the new NomCom cycle starting soon,
does anyone believe we should discuss the last point?

    Brian

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 14:55:49 -0400

> does anyone believe we should discuss the last point?

Brian,

I don't know if this is just my idiosyncrasies or if others
might agree, but let me try to explain why I haven't responded
to this note and won't do so before Montreal.

I have discovered, reluctantly, that there are only a finite
number of hours in a given week, that I can't dedicate all of
them to the IETF (and that it wouldn't make any difference if I
could), and that, too keep my sanity and the sense that IETF is
worth any energy at all, I need to maintain some balance between
technical work and poking at administrative issues.  

I note that a Last Call on a document that I prepared has just
concluded, with a good deal of discussion (mostly, IMO, not
relevant, but I had to read it).  I note that a decision was
made to Last Call a document about normative RFC formats that
have generated a firestorm of discussion -- discussion that I
consider important because I believe we should be working on
solutions to some underlying problems even while I believe that
this particular proposal is not adequately-defined or
appropriate at this time.  I note that you have taken the fairly
unusual step for an AD (whether officially in that role or not)
of issuing a document that tries to reset the agenda of an
existing IETF WG in your area (
draft-carpenter-newtrk-questions-00).  I don't see any problem
with that, but it has to go fairly high on the priorities of
those of us who have tried to get work done within the WG.  I
note that there are four documents on the table that impact the
RFC Editor/ document publication process on the table, that the
boundaries between them are not completely clear (even if that
were possible), that the schedules are tight, and that the IETF
and community can probably live longer without an
optimally-structured IETF Chair than it can without an effective
publication process.   There are a variety of other process or
organizational change documents, plus at least one technical
document with profound process implications, out there (and in
or near Last Call), many of them overlapping in subtle ways, and
with no advice from you (individually), you (as General Area
AD), you (as IETF Chair), or the IESG generally, about
priorities, etc.

As far as this one is concerned, I have read it a couple of
times.  Parts of your model of the roles and how they might
plausibly be divided are inconsistent with my perceptions.   My
sense is that some of the issues could be addressed in radically
different ways, ones that might actually work better and, along
some dimensions, require fewer changes.   

That doesn't mean you are wrong.  It means that the topics need,
IMO, further discussion and presentation and exploration of
alternatives.  It means that I can't usefully comment on the
subject matter without describing the problems and alternatives
I see and why they are important to be considered. Partially
because of IESG (and IESG member) decisions as to what to Last
Call and when, and the degree to which the General Area AD has
(or has not) been coordinating and steering these collections of
process efforts, this note has ended up in the midst of a rather
large swamp.  And I'm out of bandwidth.

If the IETF Chair position were up for review by this coming
Nomcom, I think I'd take your notes as part of a suggestion to
the Nomcom that they solicit from potential candidates, not an
ever-longer questionnaire, but an essay that specifically
addresses these issues, possibly with the intention of compiling
the results and getting them to the community and IESG as part
of the decision process.  I could elaborate on that idea if
anyone cared, but I presume we have a year before it is in the
critical path.

Perhaps I should suggest what I would suggest if a participant
in the community who was not IETF Chair or on the IESG floated a
document like this on an individual basis:  Announce a beer BOF
schedule for Montreal.  Offer, if necessary, to buy the first
round or a beer for anyone who makes a constructive suggestion.
And then see if, with appropriate lubrication, you get some good
input or if anyone cares about the subject matter more than the
beer itself.

     john

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 10:51:42 +0200

John C Klensin wrote:
> number of hours in a given week,

This is a point on which the draft and its author are in violent
agreement with you :-)

<snip>

> plausibly be divided are inconsistent with my perceptions.

Understood, but as far as what tasks the I* Chair performs today
(and has done for at least the last few years), the draft is description,
not opinion. Of course, the way tasks are assigned to the differing
roles is a matter of judgement and opinion.

>   My
> alternatives.  

That is certainly true.

<snip>

> Nomcom,

It is. I started my term in March 2005. Time flies.

> I think I'd take your notes as part of a suggestion to
> of the decision process.

I certainly have it in mind to draw NomCom's attention to the draft.
It's up to them what use they choose to make of it.

> I could elaborate on that idea if

(Un)fortunately not.

> input or if anyone cares about the subject matter more than the

I'm not completely convinced that beer is the appropriate choice
in Montreal, but I would definitely welcome informal discussion,
because I believe the community does need to face these issues.
I fully appreciate your comments (that I have snipped out) about
excessive process related discussions, but we need to ensure
that future NomComs have viable choices.

     Brian

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 17:28:12 -0400

I'd like to second John's comments here.  I'm here to do technical
work.  Over the last six months I've had to spend a lot of time on
process issuse.  I won't be able to do that for a while.

Frankly, the fact that I feel things are working well enough that I
can go focus on technical work says something significant.

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 21:57:33 +0800

Hi, Brian,

> does anyone believe we should discuss the last point?

You can expect smarter comments when people surface for air after the ID 
cutoff (or maybe after IETF 66), but for now, I have a couple of comments.

- the draft points out the hopefully-proactive nature of the IETF chair 
responsibilities, but is silent on proactive vs reactive vs just-active on 
the other two responsibilities. My impression as an outsider is that the 
IESG chair responsibilities also are/should be proactive, but the community 
has been EXTREMELY resistent to doing General Area work if it can be 
avoided, so this responsibility is between reactive and inactive. If you 
agree with my understanding here, it might be good to state this explicitly 
in the draft (identifying one more reason why you suffer from 
schizophrenia - lucky you).

- In section 4, I think

   1.  (deleted, down to ) Although the General Area is
       in theory for any work not covered elsewhere, it is in practice
       limited to non-technical topics, i.e.  IETF process topics.  This
       does create a curious meta-problem, which is the constant concern
       about conflict of interest for an Area Director shepherding and
       advocating work that affects (positively or negatively) his or
       her own job.

WAY understates the amount of pushback you get when you (for example) spin 
up PESCI, or author draft-carpenter-ietf-disputes-00.txt, or ... well, you 
get my drift. If I understand the situation, you believe that as General 
Area Director you are responsibile for making things happen that the 
community believes you should not be making things happen since you are the 
IESG and IETF chair. Madness lies this way, and it's not a long trip.

This alone would justify a few minutes of consideration, before the next 
NomCom cycle, I think.

Thanks,

Spencer

p.s. You might also enjoy the following story about General Braxton Bragg, 
in United States history, appearing in 
http://www.biocrawler.com/encyclopedia/Braxton_Bragg and elsewhere:

Bragg had a reputation for being a strict disciplinarian and one who adhered 
to regulations literally. There is a famous story about him as a lieutenant 
commanding a frontier post where he also served as quartermaster. He 
submitted a requisition for supplies, then as quartermaster declined to fill 
it. As company commander, he resubmitted the requisition, giving additional 
reasons for his requirements, but as the quartermaster he denied the request 
again. Realizing that he was at a personal impasse, he referred the matter 
to the post commandant, who exclaimed "My God, Mr. Bragg, you have quarreled 
with every officer in the army, and now you are quarreling with yourself!"