On 10October2013Thursday, at 1:30, SM wrote:
> At 12:27 09-10-2013, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>> Now, there is indeed a possible issue, and that is that these chairs
>> were attending a "chief officer"-type meeting: there were CEOs and so
>> on, and (presumably by analogy) the chairs got invited to represent
>> the organizations of which they are chairs. John is quite right that
>> people unfamiliar with the way the IETF or IAB work might interpret
>> the statement along the lines of, "The CEO of the IETF said that the
>> IETF subscribes to some view." Normally, the leader of an
>> organization can direct that organization to some end; the Chair is
>> the leader; therefore, the Chair can direct the organization. Of
>> course, that's not how we operate (this is, I think, at the bottom of
>> this very discussion). But others might get that impression.
>>
>> What I am not sure about is whether people are willing to accept the
>> chairs acting in that sort of "leader of organization" role. If we do
>> accept it, then I think as a consequence some communications will
>> happen without consultation. For a CEO is not going to agree to issue
>> a joint communique with someone who has to go negotiate the contents
>> of that communique (and negotiate those contents in public). If we do
>> not accept it, then we must face the fact that there will be meetings
>> where the IETF or IAB just isn't in the room, because we'll have
>> instructed the chairs not to act in that capacity.
>
> There might be some history to the "we reject: kings, presidents and voting".
>
> Should the IETF change the way it operates? There are advantages to the
> Chair directing the organization. It is easier to set policy. It is easier
> for the Chair to negotiate with other organizations. There are
> disadvantages, for example, the policy might not reflect the wishes of the
> community. The IETF might have to reconsider whether people participate as
> individuals or as corporate folks.
>
> There is the question of openness. If the IETF were to set policy behind
> closed doors, can it say that it is open? "We" don't take working group
> decisions behind closed doors. The IESG tries to take its decisions in a
> transparent manner. There may have been a time when it was not like that.
>
> As I mentioned previously the IAB [1] is supposed to be based on collegial
> responsibility. There hasn't been any discussion to change that during the
> tenure of the last two IAB Chairs. What's different now? The IAB has
> published statements and RFCs about its positions. The Chairs can exercise
> their discretion.
>
> The members of the IESG and the IAB have not mentioned that they do not have
> the ability to negotiate under current rules [2]. The IETF Chair and the IAB
> Chair have not mentioned that they are not able to negotiate due to the
> current rules. The question of trust comes up every now and then.
> Responsibility [3] seems to be an inconvenient word on this mailing list.
>
> What's the opinion of the persons who are part of "leadership" about all this?
>
> Regards,
> -sm
well, I will stand up and claim to be part of the "leadership" - since
this supposed to be a bottom up organization.
the IETF has changed the way it works and we see other fora come into
existence that reflect a true bottom up approach. If we (the affected
community) feel that a top down approach would be
for the best, going forward, I see no better top-down organization
than the ITU-T. The community will decide the relevance of a group that
ignores or dismisses their needs.
/bill
>
> 1. "People outside think IAB has power :-)"
> 2. I chose a word quickly.
> 3. the state or fact of being responsible, answerable, or accountable.
