Subject: [Pesci-discuss] Question: stability of IAB

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 05:56:28 -0400

This is a question submitted as an individual.

One of the claims made in the current draft is that the IAB would
remain relatively stable throughout process change.

Have people carefully considered the the effectiveness of the IAB in
its architectural role?  Are people being quiet and not proposing
change because things are working fine and the IAB is providing
valuable architectural guidance just the way we need it?  Or are
people being quiet because the IAB is not in the way?

I don't know what the answer is, but I think it important to consider
carefully before deciding the IAB's role is stable.

_______________________________________________
Pesci-discuss mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pesci-discuss

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 09:12:49 -0400

> carefully before deciding the IAB's role is stable.

Stable over what period?  I think perhaps there's an issue with
the IAB's output not being taken to heart but the reasons for
that may not be structural.  Unless what's under discussion is
some truly radical transformation of the decision-making processes,
it probably does make sense to assume the IAB's role is stable
for the time being but may change in the future.

Melinda

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 15:26:32 +0200

> This is a question submitted as an individual.

Attempting to answer as an individual, although one
with a number of IAB-years in hand.

> remain relatively stable throughout process change.

I think one reason for that assumption is that the IAB isn't on the
critical path for the standards process, except in the appeals case.
It is of course involved in a consultative role in WG formation
and many other places, but it clearly isn't part of (for example)
the generic slowness problem.
> its architectural role?

In my experience every new intake of IAB members, including the 2005
intake, have exactly this as their top concern. We didn't talk about
it in PESCI, however. Maybe it's just a separable problem.

> Are people being quiet and not proposing

I can't dispute your logic.

    Brian

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 16:13:43 +0200

>remain relatively stable throughout process change.

Full support of this. IAB has expressed at least two concerns I know of:

- RFC 3869 one can also read as questions on the way IAB should adapt 
to help better R&D
- the recent open mailing list on architectural issues. I consider as 
extremely positive, but a real change, which can bring new changes 
(going with ab evolution of the architectural vision)
jfc

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 19:17:27 +0300

There's probably need for some improvements in
the IAB's area. I'd like to see more focus on
achitectural guidance.

However, we should be careful in not attempting
to change too many variables at the same time.
A priority order is needed. The community can
only focus enough to get through a limited set
of improvements per year. We need to choose those
with the best bang for the buck ratio. I think the most
important task, administrative restructuring, was already
accomplished and this is a good base to continue
other tasks. Many IESG-process improvements (e.g.
individual submissions, tracker) have also been executed
with a noticeable effect. My personal favorite next
issues to focus on include WG/document process
improvements, RFC Editor process, and structure
of areas. A couple of years ago IANA was on my
list too, but the situation may now be better (?).
Another issue that I'd like to see get continued
attention is openess of various processes, e.g. nomcom.
I don't think IETF chair issue belongs to the list of
most critical items (Brian seems to be doing fine
here...). I agree that IRTF, IASA, IAD, IAOC, ISOC
should not be under major revision now.

--Jari

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 15:10:48 -0400

>>>>> "Brian" == Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]> writes:

    >> This is a question submitted as an individual.

    Brian> Attempting to answer as an individual, although one with a
    Brian> number of IAB-years in hand.

    >> One of the claims made in the current draft is that the IAB
    >> would remain relatively stable throughout process change.

    Brian> I think one reason for that assumption is that the IAB
    Brian> isn't on the critical path for the standards process,
    Brian> except in the appeals case.  It is of course involved in a
    Brian> consultative role in WG formation and many other places,
    Brian> but it clearly isn't part of (for example) the generic
    Brian> slowness problem.

No, but for example it may be part of the solution to the early
cross-area review problem.

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 22:27:25 +0200

> cross-area review problem.

Only if the IAB can delegate the task better than the IESG has been able to.

---

From: Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 17:19:24 -0400

I'll come back to the general question later, but I'd
suggest this is a fine place to separate discussion of
the problem from solutions (or a particular solution).

1/ Problem:  cross area review -- not happening enough

2/ Potential solution: closed group does the review/manages
the review.

3/ Specific instance of potential solution:  the IAB is repurposed
to be that closed group.

There's plenty of room (and need) for discussion of 1/ and
2/ before getting distracted with discusion of 3/, IMO.

Leslie.

---

From: Geoff Huston <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 07:08:36 +1000

>for the time being but may change in the future.

The IAB's role appears to be stable in terms of the appeal process and the
nomcom process. Beyond that I suspect that currently its role at any point
in time is an outcome of a negotiation between the then-IESG and the
then-IAB.

regards,

   Geoff

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 00:43:31 +0200

>to change too many variables at the same time.

Dear Jari,
there are two problems: the method for changes and some immediate changes.

The method is important, and probably more: the resulting culture to 
be ready to consider, to accept and to enforce changes.

>A priority order is needed.

This priorities should be set-up in considering the expected 
experience to analyse/valiated the method and the symbolic value to 
develop and ascertain the culture.

<>

>A couple of years ago IANA was on my

IMHO from current observation both inside and outside the IETF this 
is _the_ political and architectural target for changes. Protecting 
status quo would per se be a change because it would mean a 
protection action, I understand the IETF is not used to?

jfc

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 01:54:02 -0400

>>>>> "Leslie" == Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]> writes:

    Leslie> There's plenty of room (and need) for discussion of 1/ and
    Leslie> 2/ before getting distracted with discusion of 3/, IMO.

Completely agreed.

However the current pesci draft makes a statement which I believe can
reasonably be read as the IAB is not part of the solutions to any of
these problems.

I think it is premature to make that statement.  That's all I think at
this point.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 11:41:26 +0200

Jari,

> here...).

I need to explain frankly why I disagree.

Thanks for the compliment, but my personal feeling is
that despite working long hours and trying to be
efficient, I am *not* doing a good job of managing the
IESG workload and chasing up the sources of delay.
And that isn't because I don't know what needs to be
done - actually Bill Fenner has a web page that tells
me exactly which documents need extra attention.

http://rtg.ietf.org:8080/Test/tracker_exceptions

It's simply due to lack of time to concentrate on
this as well as doing the more visible parts of
the IETF Chair job.

This isn't a complaint. But it's reality.

    Brian

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 13:08:33 +0300

I don't disagree with what you say below. Yes
there are problems that deserve attention. You
are still doing a fine job under the circumstances,
IMHO.

But the original question was what are
the most critical issues that the IETF
should handle first, assuming we can't
do everything overnight. I didn't think this
particular item belonged to the most critical
list for a number of reasons, including the
existence of more serious problems and/or
potential for bigger payoff, the expected ability
of your IESG co-workers for being a rather
self-managed set of folks and already designated
drivers for each individual issue that your web
page lists. Also, if the solution is adding ADs
then it may be that those ADs are more badly
needed for other purposes.

--Jari

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 13:17:58 +0300 (EEST)

> http://rtg.ietf.org:8080/Test/tracker_exceptions

It's great to see that such a page is finally up, even as 
experimental.

For example, if a doc languishes in 'publication requested', 'AD 
evaluation' or whatever for 100+ days, we can hardly be proud of the 
result. That's also a very good way to kill the WG's, editors', etc. 
enthusiasm on the work.

Is the IESG doing something about this list, both:
  - in preventive steps, decreasing the likelihood that new docs get on
    "seriously delayed" stage (e.g., in each telechat, look at 10-15
    docs which have just appeared on the list or crossed some
    more serious threshold), and
  - getting the already seriously delayed docs moving again (e.g., in
    each telechat, discuss the 10 or 15 "worst cases")

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 16:53:25 +0200

This isn't really PESCI core business but I'll attempt
to answer below...

Pekka Savola wrote:
> It's great to see that such a page is finally up, even as experimental.
> 

Well, we are thinking about having automatic tickle messages when
documents cross a threshold. But given the amount of mail that
ADs get anyway, more electronic tickles probably won't really help.
That's why I believe more proactive "progress chasing" is needed,
somehow.

>    each telechat, discuss the 10 or 15 "worst cases")

That would take a couple of hours (serious estimate) because if they
are stuck, it's usually for a reason. I think the real use of the list
is for work *between* the telechats.

     Brian