Subject: Re: Purpose of IESG Review

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 11:33:25 +0200

Reply to below message
The subject SHOULD be: Evaluating Review Process Performance
I prefer the Subject is: Evaluating WG input, the WG review process,
and the WG output, NOT IESG review.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Joe,

My comments mostly is on your message, but I comment also on I-Ds or
RFCs related to IETF (including joky RFCs).

I don't think it is write to evaluate the review of an IESG as long as
when we created the I-D and adopted it into IETF SYSTEM, it is already
agreeing on the methods of process that I-D is going through. So the
problem is to evaluate three things not one: 1) the input, 2) the
process review, 3) the output.

We may make different input methods that go to another body than IESG,
but if you decided to make I-D under IETF current procedure, it will
have to go to IESG.

I think the IESG are doing an excellent job, but it is best them to
evaluate their performance not the community. Or it is better to find
a body that evaluates the IESG performance not on this list.

I consider your input on the list as a complain about the process, so
I ask you to notice that your input has an error that needs evaluation
befor going to process evaluation. You may evaluate output, but I
remind you to evaluate input of WGs and inputs of individuals.

I think the BIG problem of delay in I-Ds or RFC, is the cause of the
WG not the IESG, if you do an excellent WG processes you will get
quick results at IESG.

AB
+++++++++++++
Hi, all,

As an author who has had (and has) multiple documents in IESG review,
I've noticed an increasing trend of this step to go beyond (IMO) its
documented and original intent (BCP 9, currently RFC 2026):
   The IESG shall determine whether or not a specification submitted to
   it according to section 6.1.1 satisfies the applicable criteria for
   the recommended action (see sections 4.1 and 4.2), and shall in
   addition determine whether or not the technical quality and clarity
   of the specification is consistent with that expected for the
   maturity level to which the specification is recommended.

Although I appreciate that IESG members are often overloaded, and the
IESG Review step is often the first time many see these documents, I
believe they should be expected to more clearly differentiate their
"IESG Review" (based on the above criteria) - and its accompanying
Position ballot, with their personal review.

My concern is that by conflating their IESG position with their
personal review, the document process is inappropriately delayed and
that documents are modified to appease a small community that does not
justify its position as representative.
How do others feel about this?

Joe

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 20:24:08 +0100

How can a memebr of staff in a company argue with the manager about the
manager's decisions or performance? Only Owners/shareholders can question
managers and staff. IMO, the meeting/list discussions on any issue
without an I-D written is the staff talking/working.

If you write an I-D and to update the procedure related to the subject, you
should consider many issues and I think will need many years of
discussions, but then better effort result. IMHO, writing an I-D and
getting back up by community discussion (with rough consensus) is in the
top level and is the owner talking.

I hope that when I review and comment on an I-D, it should be considered as
one owner is talking, but seems like editors think they are the only
owners. When IESG comment on the I-D it is managers/excutives talking. All
parts are important to the best of output.

AB

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 18:18:55 -0400

--On Friday, April 12, 2013 20:24 +0100 Abdussalam Baryun
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> How can a memebr of staff in a company argue with the manager
> about the manager's decisions or performance?

In most successful companies, yes.  

> Only
> Owners/shareholders can question managers and staff.

And companies that behave that way don't last very long in
rapidly evolving fields... at least unless the managers are
endowed with perfect wisdom.  It is not an accident that most
management schools teach would-be managers that listening
--especially to the people on  the front lines-- is a very
important skill.

So, at the risk of generalizing too much... What on earth are
you talking about and what experience do you have and use to
justify it?

    john

---

From: "Pat Thaler" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 23:50:43 +0000

+1 on for John's response.
 
I will argue with my manager if I think they are wrong and I've gotten positive results from giving managers feedback on their performance. Of course, disagreeing with management won't always get the decision changed, but I've never felt I lost anything by raising the discussion.

I've also seen some bad decisions made when someone had good reasons why a decision was wrong but didn't surface them because they didn't feel they could argue with management.

IETF participant to IETF leadership isn't the same as employee to manager of course. We are all volunteers collaborating to get good results and if we feel there is a process problem we can discuss it. IETF formalizes this by having open mike sessions for example. 

A thread on whether there is a problem with the IESG review process is appropriate, IMO.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of John C Klensin
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 3:19 PM
To: Abdussalam Baryun; ietf
Subject: Re: Purpose of IESG Review

    john

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 08:55:08 +0200

Do you raise a discussion saying the below?

I believe you should be expected to more clearly differentiate your
*Review* (based on the such procedure criteria) - and its accompanying
Position ballot, with your personal review.
(Modified from the first message of thread)

Refering to first message:
I believe they should be expected to more clearly differentiate their
"IESG Review" (based on the above criteria) - and its accompanying
Position ballot, with their personal review.

We need manager's personal review and experience, I think the business
needs manager's personal views as well.

AB

On 4/13/13, Pat Thaler <[email-masked]> wrote:
> I will argue with my manager if I think they are wrong and I've gotten
> positive results from giving managers feedback on their performance. Of
> course, disagreeing with management won't always get the decision changed,
> but I've never felt I lost anything by raising the discussion.
>
> I've also seen some bad decisions made when someone had good reasons why a
> decision was wrong but didn't surface them because they didn't feel they
> could argue with management.
>
> IETF participant to IETF leadership isn't the same as employee to manager of
> course. We are all volunteers collaborating to get good results and if we
> feel there is a process problem we can discuss it. IETF formalizes this by
> having open mike sessions for example.
>

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 10:16:44 +0100

AB

Have you considered that the key thing to remember in the
IETF is that:

"Foo is broken because of (carefully reasoned) Bar" always trumps
"Foo is OK because of who I am" ... and of course vise versa.

Thus in the IETF influence is a function of the ability to
carefully construct a well reasoned technical argument rather
than organizational position.

Of course you have to accept that no matter how carefully
reasoned your case for Bar is, your reasoning may be flawed,
and if that is the case you will normally be told so, sometimes
fairly bluntly, and that the NULL argument will likely be ignored
as noise.

- Stewart

On 12/04/2013 20:24, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
> How can a memebr of staff in a company argue with the manager about 
> the manager's decisions or performance? Only Owners/shareholders can 
> question managers and staff. IMO, the meeting/list discussions on any 
> issue without an I-D written is the staff talking/working.
> If you write an I-D and to update the procedure related to the 
> subject, you should consider many issues and I think will need many 
> years of discussions, but then better effort result. IMHO, writing an 
> I-D and getting back up by community discussion (with rough 
> consensus) is in the top level and is the owner talking.
> I hope that when I review and comment on an I-D, it should be 
> considered as one owner is talking, but seems like editors think they 
> are the only owners. When IESG comment on the I-D it is 
> managers/excutives talking. All parts are important to the best of output.
> AB

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 09:37:28 -0400

--On Friday, April 12, 2013 23:50 +0000 Pat Thaler
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> I will argue with my manager if I think they are wrong and
> I've gotten positive results from giving managers feedback on
> their performance. Of course, disagreeing with management
> won't always get the decision changed, but I've never felt I
> lost anything by raising the discussion.

I should probably have added that, for some specific classes of
issues and for those who are members of ACM, IEEE, and several
other professional societies, failure to do so is a violation of
the standards of professional ethics to which they have agreed.
Then again, so is discriminatory behavior.  See, e.g.,
http://www.acm.org/about/code-of-ethics and
http://www.ieee.org/about/corporate/governance/p7-8.html .

> I've also seen some bad decisions made when someone had good
> reasons why a decision was wrong but didn't surface them
> because they didn't feel they could argue with management.

Yep.  I didn't say it always worked out well or that all
managers are competent and secure enough to tolerate feedback.  

> IETF participant to IETF leadership isn't the same as employee
> to manager of course. We are all volunteers collaborating to
> get good results and if we feel there is a process problem we
> can discuss it. IETF formalizes this by having open mike
> sessions for example. 

And appeal procedures as an integral part of the decision-making
process.  I've said this before, but I believe we don't use
those enough for "normal" situations where issues and tradeoffs
have not been considered properly.  That lack of use has led to
an impression that appeals were the tools and refuge of crazies
and trolls, which was certainly never the intent.

> process is appropriate, IMO.

Oh, indeed.  And, at a slightly more indirect level, I believe
that the ways in which carefully thought-out constructive
discussion and suggestions have sometimes been belittled and
suppressed lies at the root of some of our larger problems.
Unfortunately, noise from crazies, people who strongly push
suggestions or comments without bothering to try to understand
the actual situations or history, a few people who think that
making IETF more like some other body would automatically make
it better, fear of change by those in leadership positions, and
miscellaneous trolls has made those more constructive
conversations difficult as well.

    john

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 17:27:01 -0700

> without an I-D written is the staff talking/working.

That is, as John said, completely wrong for any organization that wants to
be successful.  That goes for the IETF as well.  If I thought the IETF
operated in the restricted way you're describing, I'd have walked away long
ago.  The same goes for any serious job I've ever had.

In my experience here, there's always room to ask for justification for a
decision, and push back on things with which you disagree, be they
technical or procedural.  Different personalities respond to those
challenges differently, of course, but that doesn't change the point.

> I hope that when I review and comment on an I-D, it should be considered
> as one owner is talking, but seems like editors think they are the only

The role of a document editor is to record consensus.  If you comment on
something and nobody supports your perspective and the editor doesn't adopt
your suggestions, then the editor may seem like she or he is ignoring you
but has actually done the job properly.

-MSK

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 09:28:19 +0200

Hi Murray,

I don't want me, you or anyother volunteer to leave, but also don't
want IESG memebrs to leave. I don't disagree with the concept of
discussing with managers or in the IETF to discuss with IESG (against
indirect methods of doing that). Please don't ignore that the first
message and all thread (related to subject) was not sent to IESG
address (or even copied). Speaking directly to the problem or to the
one making an error in performance is always the right thing to do. We
all work together in a friendly environment, by solving all problems
by direct effective efforts. Thanking you,

AB