Subject: Good practices (was: Gen-art LC review: draft-secretaries-good-practices-06)

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2014 02:56:24 -0700

Hello,
At 09:03 01-07-2014, Robert Sparks wrote:
>There is text that affects the secretarial role in section 6.1.
>Should any of that be updated? In particular, given the discussion
>of delegation in the reviews of this document, should delegation
>be discussed more explicitly in this section? This would be a
>good place to discuss whether it's appropriate for a chair to
>delegate calling consensus to a secretary.

I did not find an answer to the last sentence.  There is a comment 
from Dave Crocker about "reasonable IETF process" [1].  As Robert 
Sparks noted there have been two comments during the Last Call for 
the draft (including his review), and  I note that the conclusion of 
Last Call was "no consensus".

I would appreciate some input about the following questions:

   (a) Is it appropriate for a WG Chair to delegate calling consensus 
to a WG Secretary?

   (b) Is it appropriate for a WG Chair to delegate calling consensus 
to a shepherd?

   (c) Is the determination of IETF Consensus based on public review?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg88942.html

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2014 11:25:19 +0100

SM,

> the draft (including his review)

The authors and shepherd are still working on synthesising the comments received
during last call and preparing their answers.
i don't believe this document is at the top of their list of priorities - it
will not lead to shipping code that resolves to revenue!

> and  I note that the conclusion of Last Call was "no consensus".

You may note what you like, but please don't try to call consensus on this
process.
I am the responsible AD for that stage of the process and I note that while the
last call period has expired, the discussion of the last call comments is still
slowly) on-going and making any attempt at a consensus call would be premature.

>    (c) Is the determination of IETF Consensus based on public review?

I suppose you are hoping for this list to provide "some input". Fair enough, but
why don't you start the ball rolling by giving *your* opinions and the reasoning
you have used to reach your conclusions?

Cheers,
Adrian

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2014 12:59:32 +0200

>> delegate calling consensus to a secretary.
The chair should have WG milestones updated. Do ADs follow up with
milestones in IETF? Then comes the chair priorities. We first focus on our
work in WGs may not be well organised/delegated.

> I did not find an answer to the last sentence.  There is a comment from
> Dave Crocker about "reasonable IETF process" [1].  As Robert Sparks noted
> there have been two comments during the Last Call for the draft (including
> his review), and  I note that the conclusion of Last Call was "no
> consensus".
>
>   (a) Is it appropriate for a WG Chair to delegate calling consensus to a
> WG Secretary?

The secretary can call on behalf of the chair if got the delegation. The WG
has no problem as long the secretary is the secretary, however, IMHO only
the chair should announce the results of such call. In one WG I get lost
not knowing what is the result as not much announcements may be it is clear
to old comers.

>
>   (b) Is it appropriate for a WG Chair to delegate calling consensus to a
> shepherd?

I think so, as long it is approved the name of the chair not by the
secretary name.

>   (c) Is the determination of IETF Consensus based on public review?

It is both by chair announcement and public check/review which can be
discussed at that time/place. It should always be announced on the list to
let all community know about it. Hope chairs continue announce important
processes.

AB

---

From: John Leslie <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2014 07:18:21 -0400

This is a good thread to note a general question; but first I'll
stick to the question raised...

Adrian Farrel <[email-masked]> wrote:
> To: "'S Moonesamy'" <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
> 

   The Secretary role should _not_ be a Junior-Varsity WGC, IMHO.

> The authors and shepherd are still working on synthesising the comments
> received during last call and preparing their answers.

   Last Call is a process where we spend, e.g. two, weeks collecting
comments about a document. This is the _first_step_ only, IMHO.

> i don't believe this document is at the top of their list of
> priorities - it will not lead to shipping code that resolves to revenue!

   I believe the Last Call process gets quite confused when there is
no prompt response. It should be _somebody's_ responsibility to map
out the rest of the process and estimate how long it will take.

> I am the responsible AD for that stage of the process and I note
> that while the last call period has expired,

   This phrase is unfortunate, IMHO: It suggests that the "Last Call
Period" marks the end of something.

   It does _not_ mark the end of comments!

   IMHO, it marks the _desired_ date for comments to be received, so
that appropriates responses can be scheduled.

> the discussion of the last call comments is still (slowly) on-going
> and making any attempt at a consensus call would be premature.

   I agree 100% with Adrian!

   But to say "The Last Call period has ended" sounds like "Last Call
has ended:" suggesting that no further comments are appropriate.
To misunderstand it that way is natural. :^(

>> (c) Is the determination of IETF Consensus based on public review?

   SM thinks differently than many of us... But he always raises good
questions.

> I suppose you are hoping for this list to provide "some input".

   Adrian recognizes that questions, as well as comments, are an
appropriate part of the Last Call process -- and of course that such
questions may be raised after the end of the "Last Call period".

> Fair enough, but why don't you start the ball rolling by giving
> *your* opinions and the reasoning you have used to reach your
> conclusions?

   Adrian here is trying to get the ball rolling without seeming to
pre-judge the issues. But were he to _demand_ that SM start this
ball rolling would have been inappropriate, IMHO.

   So I'll offer to "start the ball rolling" with my opinions ...

(a) IMHO it is not appropriate for a WGC to delegate calling consensus;

(b) see (a);

(c) the deterimation of IETF Consensus is not "based on" public review;
    but is always subject to appeal.

====

   It would help, IMHO, for Adrian to explain what parts of the Last
Call process remain and give _some_ estimate of when they might
complete. There is really no reason he shouldn't do this -- except
that it _seems_ unusual to actually try to manage the remainder of
the Last Call process.

   I see entirely too many cases where the remainder of the Last Call
process drags on too long.

--
John Leslie <[email-masked]>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 07:51:42 +1200

On 10/08/2014 23:18, John Leslie wrote:
...
> (a) IMHO it is not appropriate for a WGC to delegate calling consensus;

In general, agreed. But if all WG chairs are conflicted on a draft
(and that can happen, if rarely) then either they have to delegate
"up" to the Area Directors, or if that isn't possible for some
reason, there would be no choice but to ask someone else in the WG
to step in.

>     but is always subject to appeal.

It's based on the comments made during public review. I think the word
"public" is important - the consensus call should not be based on
private information. This is made very clear by the definition in
RFC 2026:
"Last-Call - A public comment period used to gage [sic] the level of
consensus about the reasonableness of a proposed standards action."

    Brian

---

From: John Leslie <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2014 16:28:35 -0400

> reason, there would be no choice but to ask someone else in the WG

   I thought of this issue minutes after posting. ;^)

   My impression has always been that if none of the WGCs feel able to
do the consensus call (which _does_ happen), they _ask_ one of the ADs
for their area to do so. If neither AD feels able, I believe the
Responsible AD designates someone else to do the consensus call.

   The Responsible AD may at any time (without IESG action) appoint an
additional WGC, so the practice as I describe it here is clearly legal.

>> (c) the determination of IETF Consensus is not "based on" public review;

   I agree that is the 2026 langugage (which prevails, BTW).

   But I believe that the 2026 language specifies the _purpose_ of
the Last-Call period; and does not strictly limit what the WGC may
call upon to judge consensus.

   Often, in practice, the WGC calls consensus for something based
upon obviously inadequate posted comments in reply. (BTW I'm always
pleased to see a WGC chair declare the posted comments less than
adequate!)

   I do not read the 2026 language to prohibit that -- but it is
certainly reasonable grounds for appeal if the posted comments are
less than adequate to _judge_ consensus. Such appeals are _extremely_
rare.

   Thus I'd agree with "partly based on" or even "mainly based on";
but I read SM's question as "strictly based on".

   YMMV...

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2014 13:33:28 -0700

Hi Adrian, John,
>You may note what you like, but please don't try to call consensus on this

 From 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-secretaries-good-practices/history/

   "Changed consensus to No from Unknown"

The note is from information is in the datatracker.

>that while the

I was not making at attempt at a consensus call.  It would be 
inappropriate of me to do so on this draft.

>you have used to reach your conclusions?

I'll comment about (a) and (b).  If I recall correctly I did the 
determination of consensus in cases (a) and (b).  I assumed that the 
Area Director or the WG Chair would have stepped in if that was a 
problem.  There was an interesting comment from Dave about consensus 
and the comment from Robert Sparks.  If I do a strict reading of RFC 
2418 the answers to (a) and (b) are no as that responsibility is 
clearly described.

In a non-IETF venue I once described consensus as a decision which 
anyone in the room would reach if he or she was making the 
decision.  If the WG Chairs retains responsibility, (a) does not look 
like a problem.  (b) could be a problem (I am taking our conversation 
into consideration).

As stated in RFC 2026, one of the goals of the Standards Process is 
"openness and fairness".  I read that as meaning that the work is 
done in public.  RFC 2026 discusses about IESG Review and Approval 
and provides the following definition: "A public comment period used 
to gage the level of consensus about the reasonableness of a proposed 
standards action" for Last-Call.  There is the:

   "The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
   final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
   ietf at ietf.org mailing lists"

which describes the comment period and where comments are to be 
sent.  According to the definition the level of consensus is 
determined based on those comments.

I am responding to John in here to try and keep my message count low.

>out the rest of the process and estimate how long it will take.

Ok.

>that appropriates responses can be scheduled.

Yes.

>    SM thinks differently than many of us... But he always raises good

Thanks.

>ball rolling would have been inappropriate, IMHO.

I actually thought about starting the ball rolling before posting my 
message.  The reason I did not do that is to be open to opinions 
before forming an opinion.  My comments (see above) are not 
well-formed.  I would have to say yes if I was asked whether it is my 
opinion to keeps things easy.

>(a) IMHO it is not appropriate for a WGC to delegate calling consensus;

I do not disagree with the above.

>     but is always subject to appeal.

I avoided broaching the subject of "appeal" in my comments as 
response to (s) would be (more) complicated.

>process drags on too long.

I was not interested in the Last Call for that draft.  I took a point 
from the review as it might provide the reader with some context for 
the questions.  I'll skip commenting about the above two paragraphs 
unless someone asks as it would steer me away from the three questions.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2014 22:30:56 -0400

--On Sunday, August 10, 2014 11:25 +0100 Adrian Farrel
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>...
> The authors and shepherd are still working on synthesising the
> comments received during last call and preparing their answers.

I had hoped to sit this one out, but the most recent discussion
(including the notes from John L. and Brian as well as this one)
suggests two observations.

First, to the degree to which this constitutes procedural rules
(as a BCP, it would seem to), it once again shows that

 * We aren't very good at that

 * There are always edge cases that get us tied in knots
	or force us to waste time figuring out how to make
	exceptions and/or drive square pegs through round holes
	to allow something that common sense would consider
	obvious.

 * If something is important enough to justify revising
	BCP 9 (RFC 2026 and its many updates) or BCP 25 (2418
	and/or 3934), we are probably at the point where we
	should just open and revise them, not incrementally
	create more and more confusions about who has the
	authority to do what.

In particular, any time a procedural document, or discussion of
it, heads the path of "do this, unless those circumstances
apply, in which case do that, unless these other circumstances
apply, in which case do that other thing, unless..." I think it
should be taken as a pretty good indication that the correct
rule should be more like "the WG Chairs and AD should, after
consulting each other for calibration and advice, use good
sense".

Second, this document is a mixture of significant procedural
changes and a tutorial on a particular role.  The mixture seems
unwise.  Language like "...include a number of additional
functions and responsibilities which are critical to the smooth
operation of IETF WGs..." could be construed as requiring that
every WG needs a secretary as well as at least two co-chairs.
Neither is true.  Under the right circumstances, a secretary may
be a good idea and a huge help (just like one or more
co-chairs).  The document provides good guidance about some of
the ways in which secretaries might be used when they are
appropriate.  I don't read anything in 2418 as preventing those
roles (in addition to those it describes).   If others read it
more narrowly, a discussion of IETF procedural flexibility and
the application of good sense might be a better treatment than
the attempt to compile a list that "is intended to be as
complete as possible".

Given the above, application of the same principles that led to
moving the Tao from the RFC Series to a living web page where
changes were subject to opportunities for IETF review and
subject to IESG approval would seem to make a lot more sense,
especially so because we really don't have a "WG Chair Handbook"
or an "AD Handbook" and it seems odd to be compiling what
amounts to a "WG Secretary's Handbook" in their absence.

The analogy to the Tao also suggests that the effort to compile
this document write things down, and get community review has
been worthwhile and constructive.   What is less clear is
whether the result should be a BCP in the RFC Series or, like
the Tao, an evolving document.

 best,
   john

    john

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2014 19:37:47 -0800

> the Tao, an evolving document.

Two things:

1) I do think that it makes sense to have something like
this in a wiki or informal document, both because I don't
see a lot of value in adding more formal layers to the IETF
organizational structure and because I do think a casual
document is going to be more responsive to changing
circumstances, and

2) I would object rather strenuously to this being published
as a BCP, anyway.  I am unclear what problem it solves -
certainly, if there's an issue with underperforming chairs
that really needs to be dealt with head-on rather than delegating
to another individual (who may or may not perform).  I continue
to think that if you're in a situation in which you feel you
cannot fire a chair, add another one rather than adding someone
who's neither fish nor fowl, not really a chair but kind of sort-
of one, anyway.

Wiki page describing the secretary role: yea.  Publishing
a BCP further formalizing the secretary role: nay.

Melinda

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 12:31:07 -0400

--On Sunday, August 10, 2014 19:37 -0800 Melinda Shore
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> that really needs to be dealt with head-on rather than
> delegating to another individual (who may or may not perform).
> I continue to think that if you're in a situation in which you
> feel you cannot fire a chair, add another one rather than
> adding someone who's neither fish nor fowl, not really a chair
> but kind of sort- of one, anyway.

Agree strongly but let me turn the above around:

While informal guidance is probably always a good idea (as long
as getting it together doesn't suck energy out of useful
technical work), the secretary role needs formal definition and
procedures only if it is really a Junior Chair.   If we don't
want Junior Chairs (and I agree with Melinda and the draft that
we don't), then the job description is best kept as informal and
flexible as possible.

In particular, WG Secretary roles have been used in the past for
leadership development.  Doing that well requires a lot of
flexibility.  Creating an explicit Apprentice Chair role (even
if named something else) would probably undesirable for several
reasons but a document that restricts the ability for Chair(s)
to assign some of their responsibilities to a Secretary who
works under reasonably close supervision would impede that
possibility and, if the document were a BCP, make it subject to
appeal.

    john

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 20:44:54 +0200

>> delegating to another individual (who may or may not perform).

All organisations or departments have secrataries positions. I think
it is very important position even if its tasks are small but are
important which it has no much responsibility on secretary but on the
chair because he/she should always take all the admin-tasks
responsibility.

>> but kind of sort- of one, anyway.

Firing chairs is the AD responsibility not the community. We are not
in that situation, if an AD is in that situation, then he/she can add
chair or secretary to help in small activities (depends on the reasons
of situation), however, our ADs are perfect in that and I see no
problem at ADs management so far (not sure of your example is it real
or imaginary for future).

> we don't), then the job description is best kept as informal and

I never seen secretary positions as informal/hidden in successful
organisation. IETF may have many informal groups or teams but I think
that should stop and we need more formal and not hidden positions so
we can progress in management activities. All successful managers need
assistance of secretaries. I recommend even ADs need help of
secretaries, why not :-).

> leadership development.

That is one benefit, but not the most important advantage, IMHO, WGs
need assistance with that position.

>
> Doing that well requires a lot of

We don't create a new chair role, but only a normal secretary role (it
is known what is secretary roles in successful organisations, they are
about very small tasks without powers and all
monitored/approved/signed by manager/chair). Chair roles have powers
that cannot be delegated only to co-chair or AD. There can be no
appeal for the secretary role because secretaries have no power on WG,
that is similar in any organisation/departments/office in the world.

AB