Subject: [Rfced-future] **Consensus check on part of Issue 13: Is decision making in the strategy body open to all?**

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2020 16:39:56 +0100

Please let us know in within the next three weeks if you disagree with any of the following:

• The chairs think that everybody agrees that there is some strategic body

• The chairs think that strategic decisions get documented in RFCs

• The chairs think that there is consensus that the strategic body is open to all to engage openly, and that meetings should be open, minuted, agendas posted.  This is not to say that there is consensus about how the strategic body is composed.

These points obviously do not close Issue 13.

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2020 16:26:44 -0000

Thanks Eliot,

I can agree with all of that.

Hiding behind the third bullet is the question about how the strategic body makes decisions: by votes of the body, by consensus of the body, by consensus of all those who engage.

And that leads to a question non the second bullet as to whether the RFCs need any form of consensus (e.g., IETF consensus on the IETF stream, IAB consensus on the IAB stream) or are publications of record by the strategic body.

Ciao,
Adrian

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2020 16:05:25 -0500

I do not understand the third point below.
If the strategic body is open to everyone to participate in, then that 
seems to be the answer to "how is it composed".

With a stronger senior technical publishing advisor than we seem to be 
moving towards, I can see how that can work.  But if this body owns the 
whole strategic task, I think what you describe is a recipe for failure 
over time.

Sure, we can make it work for a while.  We are making the current setup 
work for a while.  But our goal is a long term structure, and I just 
don't see it working well.  Given the number of working groups I have 
seen where strong differences in philosophy have practically paralyzed 
the working group, combined with the strong differences in philosophy I 
have seen in this group, I have trouble getting my head around how this 
is expected to actually work.

Having said that I will reiterate that having a means for community 
participation that is a serious part of the process seems to me to be a 
good thing.  I am not saying "go away and let the experts do this behind 
closed doors."

Yours,
Joel

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2020 23:21:08 -0500

Hi Eliot -

I align strongly with Joel's view below.

I also don't believe that your third point is well stated - instead:

I believe "that there is consensus that the strategic body engages with 
the community, solicits its input, allows for observation of the 
decision process, and provides documentation of such decisions".   E.g. 
how the IESG, IAB and LLC generally operate - can listen on the call, 
and might be able to ask questions at the end, but not be part of the 
discussion for decisions taken (at least unless asked by the strategic 
body).

I do not believe there is consensus on "engage openly with the body" 
which I take to mean "everyone gets to participate as an equal and is a 
decision maker for the strategic body".

I believe there is no consensus on the set of decision makers yet.   My 
personal belief follows Joel's statement:  "if this [strategic] body 
[open to everyone] owns the whole strategic task, I think what you 
describe is a recipe for failure over time".

Mike

On 11/27/2020 4:05 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> moving towards, I can see how that can work.  But if this body owns 
> the whole strategic task, I think what you describe is a recipe for 
> failure over time.
>
> Sure, we can make it work for a while.  We are making the current 
> setup work for a while.  But our goal is a long term structure, and I 
> just don't see it working well.  Given the number of working groups I 
> have seen where strong differences in philosophy have practically 
> paralyzed the working group, combined with the strong differences in 
> philosophy I have seen in this group, I have trouble getting my head 
> around how this is expected to actually work.
>
> participation that is a serious part of the process seems to me to be 
> a good thing.  I am not saying "go away and let the experts do this 
> behind closed doors."
>
> Yours,
> Joel
>
>> • The chairs think that there is consensus that the strategic body is 
>> open to all to engage openly, and that meetings should be open, 
>> minuted, agendas posted.  This is not to say that there is consensus 
>> about how the strategic body is composed.
>>