Subject: Re: [Iasa20] IAOC -- looking for committee volunteers

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 08:07:23 +1200

Jordi,

On 11/04/2017 06:27, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> Once more, as I indicated in November last year. I fail to see ANY RFC that confirms that the IAOC itself is empowered by the community to select more committee members in a very obscure way, and as Leslie indicated based on “personell decisions”. Clearly not transparent at all.
> 
> Why, if committees need more participants, which I understand because the increase of the workload, and knowing already since several months ago that this is a thread, and that the NomCom have candidates to participate.
> 
> We have got an opportunity to ask the NomCom to work on extra candidates since some people was appointed already in November.
> 
> If there is no RFC allowing it, clearly this is a decision that MUST be appealed, as it is totally against the IETF spirit.

I disagree, but let me explain why, because I agree that there's a 
problem, just not the one that you state.

And I suggest that we follow up on the appropriate list for the point I'm
going to make (hence the way this message is addressed, with a Bcc to the
ietf list).

Firstly, we gave the administrative job to IASA some years ago. IASA, whose
head is the IAD, is IMHO completely entitled to do its job how it pleases,
for example by negotiating resources with ISOC or by calling for community
volunteers and organising them in committees. 

Secondly, we created the IAOC to oversee IASA and the IAD. That's what
the "O" in IAOC stands for, and it was not a casual choice.

These two separate consensus decisions have got very mixed up since 2005.
The IAOC is evidently not just overseeing IASA - it's doing a large part of
the work of IASA itself. That's the problem that needs fixing - either by
changing the rules in RFC 4071 to describe reality, or by changing reality
to follow the rules.

Not everyone agrees with my analysis, but I think we have the IASA 2.0
discussion for a reason.

   Brian

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 13:24:13 -0700

offlist.

the iad is not the head of iasa. the iaoc is.

On April 10, 2017 1:07:23 PM PDT, Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> Once more, as I indicated in November last year. I fail to see ANY
>RFC that confirms that the IAOC itself is empowered by the community to
>select more committee members in a very obscure way, and as Leslie
>indicated based on “personell decisions”. Clearly not transparent at
>all.
>> 
>> Why, if committees need more participants, which I understand because
>the increase of the workload, and knowing already since several months
>ago that this is a thread, and that the NomCom have candidates to
>participate.
>> 
>> We have got an opportunity to ask the NomCom to work on extra
>candidates since some people was appointed already in November.
>> 
>> If there is no RFC allowing it, clearly this is a decision that MUST
>be appealed, as it is totally against the IETF spirit.
>
>_______________________________________________
>iasa20 mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20

d/

-- 
  Dave Crocker
  bbiw.net

  via mobile

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 08:47:57 +1200

> the iad is not the head of iasa. the iaoc is.

I don't read RFC 4071 that way, although of course interpretations
may differ.

  "The IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC)
   directs and oversees the IASA...
   The IASA consists initially of a single full-time ISOC employee, the
   IETF Administrative Director (IAD), who is entitled to act on behalf
   of the IASA at the direction of the IAOC....
   The IAOC determines what IETF administrative functions are to be
   performed, and how or where they should be performed..."

So yes, the IAOC directs & oversees, but nowhere is it written that the
IAOC does the work, which seems to be Jordi's concern. Getting the work
done is clearly the IAD's responsibility.

IMHO,
    Brian

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 14:54:19 -0700

> done is clearly the IAD's responsibility.

Language like "doing the work" is pretty much irrelevant to the point I 
was responding to.

Again, you said:

> IASA whose head is the IAD

The 'head' of an organization is at the top and the document makes clear 
that the IAOC at the head of IASA.

In cliche'd terms, perhaps you are confusing the job of chief operating 
officer with that of chief executive.  Like the COO position, the IAD is 
an operations slot.  The COO reports to the CEO.  That makes the CEO the 
head, not the COO.

And since icing is always so appealing, note that the IAOC is part of 
IASA and the IAOC does not report to the IAD.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 11:55:20 +1200

Continuing this discussion because precision seems to be desirable:
> an operations slot.  The COO reports to the CEO.  That makes the CEO the 

I think you're overlooking the fact that IOAC is a committee, and committees
are notoriously bad at being chief executives. So yes, the IAOC has authority,
and it has a Chair, but the Chair isn't a CEO. I think the way we set it up
conflates COO and CEO in the job of the IAD.

However, the underlying point is that IMHO the IAOC was never intended to get
directly involved in doing the work of IASA; you and other former and current
members have given me the impression that the IAOC is in fact so involved.
Whether that's good or bad is different question, and seems to be at the
root of Jordi's concern.
 
> IASA 

Yes, and "housed within ISOC" according to RFC 4071.

> and the IAOC does not report to the IAD.

Agreed. Just the opposite, in fact. Tthe only IAOC sub-committee mentioned
in RFC 4071 is the one that hires and fires the IAD.

   Brian

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 13:16:55 +0200

Hi Brian,

I guess we agree somehow …

The IASA has the job. Right. May be the actual staff, including the IAD is overloaded and the IAOC is taking over part of that job, which should not be the case.

So, in that case, we either ask the IAD to increase the resources, or we modify RFC4071 as you indicated.

However, if the way that we define to move on is community volunteers, we need a transparent way to choose them, or maybe by means of the NOMCOM, but as said, I fail to see what RFC states a non-transparent way to choose volunteers for any job in the IETF.

Regards,
Jordi

-----Mensaje original-----
De: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Organización: University of Auckland
Responder a: <[email-masked]>
Fecha: lunes, 10 de abril de 2017, 22:07
Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
Asunto: Re: IAOC -- looking for committee volunteers

    Jordi,

    

    

       Brian

**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 13:19:35 +0200

I agree with Brian view on this.

Clearly, we should take the opportunity to clarify what we wanted to say and refine the language so there is a single read on this issue …

Regards,
Jordi

-----Mensaje original-----
De: iasa20 <[email-masked]> en nombre de Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Organización: University of Auckland
Responder a: <[email-masked]>
Fecha: martes, 11 de abril de 2017, 1:55
Para: <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
Asunto: Re: [Iasa20] IAOC -- looking for committee volunteers

    

    

       Brian

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 17:16:06 -0700

> conflates COO and CEO in the job of the IAD.

Not overlooking.  And the problematic arrangement is no doubt an aspect 
to the problematic operation.  But again, my original point was that it 
is clearly erroneous to class the IAD as the head of IASA.

> Whether that's good or bad is different question, and seems to be at the

Well, yes, it might be helpful to get an accurate descriptiong of who 
actually does what.  And then ask how it should be different and then 
ask how it would be possible to make that happen.  The one thing that is 
certain is that the change won't be successful unless it is considered 
quite carefully and implemented even more carefully.

> Yes, and "housed within ISOC" according to RFC 4071.

Which has proved wonderfully problematic phrasing.  It was intended to 
be clever and it has led to such confusion as ISOC saying that the IETF 
is part of ISOC.

> in RFC 4071 is the one that hires and fires the IAD.

So the head of the IASA reports to a group that is in charge of IASA?

d/