Subject: Further work on WG (chair) roles - MPOWR WG proposal

From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 10:10:35 -0500

Hi All,

 At IETF 58, the IESG presented a proposal to build a more effective
 IETF management structure by moving more authority and responsibility
 from the IESG to our ~220 IETF WG chairs. This message summarizes
 some of the feedback we received and proposes that the community
 consider the formation of a specific WG to pursue this topic. The
 process of WG formation would use the following steps:

     - creation of a mailing list to discuss the scope & purpose of the
         proposed WG

     - discussion/development of a charter on the list

     - approval of WG charter by IESG (if appropriate)

 Subscription information for the mailing list is provided below.

 BACKGROUND
 ==========

 The slides for our original proposal, as presented at the IETF 58
 plenary, can be found at:

 http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/nov2003-minneapolis/iesg-wgchairs.pdf

 The minutes from the two IETF 58 plenary sessions, including
 discussion of this proposal can be found at:

 http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/nov2003-minneapolis/plenary-notes.txt

 FEEDBACK
 ========

 We received substantial feedback regarding the proposal, both during
 the plenaries and elsewhere. Thank you, and keep it coming! While we
 heard enough community interest that a further exploration seems
 warranted, a number of valid concerns were also raised. For example:

       - The community should not increase the authority and
           responsibility of WG chairs without correspondingly increasing
           their accountability to the IETF community. For example, we need
           to be careful that we do not create situations where WG chairs
           can unfairly overrule WG consensus.

       - Our original timeline was unrealistic and did not offer enough
           opportunity for community involvement and feedback. The
           community would prefer to discuss and develop potential changes
           to our BCPs through an open process, such as an IETF WG.

       - For any proposal of change, thought must be given to a long
           enough transition period and some experimental deployment
           that will help the community determine the impact before
           IETF-wide implementation.

       - The community needs to consider the motivations of WG chairs,
           document editors and active WG participants, to ensure that any
           changes will not substantially decrease the number of people
           willing to serve in these roles.

 We will be modifying our original proposal in response to this
 feedback, and submitting it as an Internet-Draft.

 Proposed MPOWR Working Group
 ============================

 WG Name: MPOWR (Management Positions - Oversight, Work and Results)

 Mailing list: [email-masked]
 To Subscribe: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr
 Archives: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr

 Expected WG home: General Area

 The broad goal of this WG would be to shift more responsibility and
 authority to WGs, while ensuring appropriate accountability to the
 IETF as a whole. The WG would consider how to move more authority and
 responsibility to WGs from the IESG, reviewing both the benefits and
 the impacts, and ensuring appropriate accountability to the community.
 The expected charter would likely include considering updates to RFCs
 2418 and possibly RFC 2026 to support these changes. Depending upon
 how charter discussions go, the group could hold a BOF or a first WG
 meeting at IETF 59 in Korea.

 We will send a strawman charter for this WG to the [email-masked]
 mailing list. Community discussion and feedback can take place there.
 If and when the community reaches consensus on a charter for a WG, the
 charter will be submitted for approval through the usual IETF WG
 creation process.

 The IESG will revise its proposal, and submit it as an Internet-Draft
 for discussion and consideration by the proposed WG.

 Additional proposals for changes in this area are welcome and should
 be published as Internet-Drafts and announced on [email-masked].

 If you are interested in participating in this effort, please
 subscribe to the [email-masked] mailing list, as described above.

 If you have suggestions regarding who should (co-)chair this proposed
 WG, if and when it is chartered, please send them to Harald Alvestrand
 <[email-masked]>.