With apologies for having posted & disappeared (ISP & other unexpected connectivity challenges), I'd like to try another cut at what I was getting at, based on the discussion since.
On Friday, I tried a minimal edit on words that had flown around the list and seemed to have some consensus. Here's more of an extensive rewrite.
Apart from the distinction I had tried to make about
. business decisions (implementation) versus
. performanceI heard these requirements expressed:
. DoS concerns -- don't create a system that begs for
denial of IASA service through the appeal/review process
. second-guessing -- don't create an environment where
some or all of the community is second-guessing IAD/IAOC
at every move
. community involvement -- adequate and appropriate
community involvement in the IASA decision making processAnd I heard various theories about distinguishing between
. before decisions are made
. during the decision-making process
. after decisions have been madeparticularly in terms of whether we are discussing
. appeal (review of executed action by an univolved
body)
. review (further discussion of an action or proposal)
. recall of IAOC members
Separately from those considerations, there is the question of implementation -- what people/body(ies) invoke an action, and so on.
So, generally speaking, I think the important things to capture in the BCP are:
. business decisions remain within the IASA
in terms of review mechanisms (i.e., contracts, etc) . the IASA should be explicitly pressed to publicize
and seek input on guidelines for making those decisions . public information should include objective measurements
of system performance (e.g., document processing
times) . there should be a crisp review process to address
the situation when (some subset of the IETF believes)
the IASA has not followed its guideliness in
carrying out an action -- and that includes the expectation
of having public guidelines.To the meeting location example -- that would mean (IMO) that the IASA should have some public guidelines for how it picks meeting sites, and if a site is picked that appears to be at odds with those guidelines, then there is a process for reviewing the IASA's actions in selecting that site. NB - that is different than appealing the site itself.
So, with all that in mind, I propose the following revised text for the 2 sections I suggested on Friday:
--------
3.5 Business Decisions
Decisions made by the IAD in the course of carrying out IASA business activities are subject to review by the IAOC.
The decisions of the IAOC must be publicly documented for each formal action.
3.6 Responsiveness of IASA to the IETF
The IAOC is directly accountable to the IETF community for the performance of the IASA. In order to achieve this, the IAOC and IAD will ensure that guidelines are developed for regular operation decision making. Where appropriate, these guidelines should be developed with public input. In all cases, they must be made public.
Additionally, the IASA should ensure there are reported objective performance metrics for all IETF process supporting activities.
In the case where someone questions that an action of the IAD or the IAOC has been undertaken in accordance with this document or those operational guidelines (including the creation of an appropriate set of such guidelines), he or she may ask for a formal review of the action.
The request for review is addressed to the person or body that took the action. It is up to that body to decide to make a response, and on the form of a response.
The IAD is required to respond to requests for a review from the IAOC, and the IAOC is required to respond to requests for a review of a decision from the IAB or from the IESG.
If members of the community feel that they are unjustly denied a response to a request for review, they may ask the IAB or the IESG to make the request on their behalf.
Answered requests for review and their responses are made public. Reviews of the IAD's actions will be considered at his or her following performance review. Reviews of the IAOC's actions may be considered when IAOC members are subsequently being seated.
-----------
Note that this deletes much of the text that is currently the "Responsiveness of the IASA to the IETF Leadership" section:
However, the nature of the IAOC's work involves treating the IESG and IAB as major internal customers of the administrative support services. The IAOC and the IAD should not consider their work successful unless the IESG and IAB are also satisfied with the administrative support that the IETF is receiving.
I wondered if this was still particularly relevant/appropriate or needed...
Where it does leave the IAB and IESG in priviledged position is that they act as channelers. I am not personally strongly wedded to this -- it's a leftover from previous discussion.
Leslie.
Leslie Daigle wrote:
Following up the point I made in response to Mike St.Johns a couple days ago, I went back through the document to see if/how it distinguishes between being adequately responsive and accountable to the community, from having appropriate chains of accountability for contractual purposes (and no micromanagement of the business affairs of the IASA).
It seems to me that we should:
1/ Change this section:
3.3 Relationship of the IAOC to Existing IETF Leadership
to "3.6 Responsiveness of IASA to the IETF"
and include the original text plus Harald's text adjusted to be about the general processes. And a point about objective process metrics.
2/ Add a section (3.5) specifically about business decisions -- which, as Mike St.Johns pointed out, should remain within the IAD/IAOC.
That would make:
3.5 Business Decisions
Decisions made by the IAD in the course of carrying out IASA business activities are subject to review by the IAOC.
The decisions of the IAOC must be publicly documented to include voting records for each formal action.
3.6 Responsiveness of IASA to the IETF
The IAOC is directly accountable to the IETF community for the performance of the IASA. However, the nature of the IAOC's work involves treating the IESG and IAB as major internal customers of the administrative support services. The IAOC and the IAD should not consider their work successful unless the IESG and IAB are also satisfied with the administrative support that the IETF is receiving. In order to achieve this, the IASA should ensure there are reported objective performance metrics for all IETF process supporting activities.
In the case where someone questions an action of the IAD or the IAOC in meeting the IETF requirements as outlined above, he or she may ask for a formal review of the decision.
The request for review is addressed to the person or body that made the decision. It is up to that body to decide to make a response, and on the form of a response.
The IAD is required to respond to requests for a review from the IAOC, and the IAOC is required to respond to requests for a review of a decision from the IAB or from the IESG.
If members of the community feel that they are unjustly denied a response to a request for review, they may ask the IAB or the IESG to make the request on their behalf.
Answered requests for review and their responses are made public.
Leslie.
Leslie Daigle wrote:
Interesting...
To the extent that the IAD and IAOC are dealing with decisions about implementing requirements, I agree.
To the extent that the IAD and IAOC are applying judgement to interpret the "best needs of the IETF" (i.e., determining those requirements), I disagree. I think it's a little heavy-handed to have to instigate a recall procedure if the IAD (or IAOC) seem not to have heard the *community's* requirements for meeting location.
So, (how) can we make the distinction without creating a decision tree of epic proportions?
Leslie.
Michael StJohns wrote:
Hi Harald et al -
I apologize for chiming in on this so late, but I had hopes it would get worked out without me pushing over apple carts.
I can't support this and I recommend deleting this section in its entirety.
My cut on this:
The decisions of the IAD should be subject to review (and in some cases ratification) ONLY by the IAOC.
The decisions of the IAOC should not be subject to further review by the IETF at large. The proper venue for expressing tangible displeasure with a decision is during the appointment and reappointment process. (Note, I'm not precluding pre-decision comment by the community at large, and I encourage the IAOC to seek such comment where appropriate but once the decision is made its time to stop whining and get on with things)
The decisions of the IAOC must be publicly documented to include voting records for each formal action.
The IAOC and IAD must accept public or private comment but there is no requirement to either respond or comment on such missives.
The IAOC and IAD should not be subject to the IETF appeals process. The appropriate venue for egregious enough complaints on the commercial side is the legal system or the recall process.
My reasoning:
The IAD and IAOC are making commercial (as opposed to standards) decisions and the result of that may be contracts or other commercial relationships. Its inappropriate in the extreme to insert a third (or fourth or fifth) party into that relationship.
The IAD/IAOC relationship is going to be somewhat one of employee/employer and its inappropriate to insert external parties into that relationship.
The documentation requirement is so that when the appointment process happens there will be some audit trail as to who did what to whom.
The IETF appeals process is not appropriate for a commercial action. A standards action may adversely affect competitors across a broad spectrum of companies. This commercial action only affects the bidders or winners.
Please, let's get the IETF out of the metaphorical administrative back seat and get them back to doing what they do well - technology.
At 05:47 AM 1/19/2005, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
Trying to close this item, which is not resolved in the -04 draft:
I believe that the list discussion has converged on very rough consensus (Sam and Avri being the people who worry that we're building a DoS attack defense that we don't need, but Brian, Scott and John Klensin, at least, strongly arguing that we need that mechanism) on the following text, which I suggested on Jan 13, replacing the last 3 paragraphs of section 3.4:
------------------------------------------------------
3.5 Decision review
In the case where someone questions a decision of the IAD or the IAOC, he or she may ask for a formal review of the decision.
The request for review is addressed to the person or body that made the decision. It is up to that body to decide to make a response, and on the form of a response.
The IAD is required to respond to requests for a review from the IAOC, and the IAOC is required to respond to requests for a review of a decision from the IAB or from the IESG.
If members of the community feel that they are unjustly denied a response to a request for review, they may ask the IAB or the IESG to make the request on their behalf.
Answered requests for review and their responses are made public. ------------------------------------------------------- Can we live with this?
Harald
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
