Subject: [mpowr] RE: [Solutions] Troops versus superpower

From: "Robert Snively" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:59:01 -0800

I have to agree with Alex's differentiation of two approaches,
but I would like to attach a third alternative that has proven
successful in the past.

> I can understand an organization where the working group is a
> superpower, with rules and procedures for cross-group review and
> conflict resolution. I can understand an organization where the IESG
> is the superpower, with rules and procedures to encourage WG work and
> elect IESG. If current IETF is the second kind of an organization (and
> it looks like that to me), are we not fooling ourselves with "troops"
> arguments? It seems to me that we should either
> 
> 	- relax and let IESG disperse its powers to Chairs
> 	  any way it seems fit; it should be within IESG
> 	  powers to do so if IESG already has powers of so
> 	  many more important aspects of WG work
> 
> 	- remove superpowers from IESG and have a WG decide
> 	  on its Chair authority; leave IESG its current
> 	  final conflict resolution power.
> 
> Both options have real-life precedence in other SDOs, of course. We
> seem to be stuck trying to invent a third option that carefully draws
> a line between effectively powerless WG and an effective IESG
> superpower, with a Chair standing on that line. Such an option may not
> exist.

This third approach is also used by many SDOs.  By maintaining
absolute process supervision powers at a level equivalent to
that of IESG, one could successfully disperse the technical 
review powers to a lower level (WG and below) during the 
development process and to a wide public during the superpower's process
review period.  The superpowers
verify the process while the process, managed by working
group chairs, demands and defines the
required liaison and review activities.  Chairs that don't require
the process of their working group are guided toward correct behavior
or removed by the superpower.

Bob Snively
408-333-8135

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

---

From: Alex Rousskov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:07:11 -0700 (MST)

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Robert Snively wrote:

> absolute process supervision powers at a level equivalent to that of
> IESG, one could successfully disperse the technical review powers to
> a lower level (WG and below) during the development process and to a
> wide public during the superpower's process review period.

I have been told by many IETF people who know better that IETF does
not have enough folks willing to do process management only, without
the technical work. Thus, I stopped advocating and noticing this
option; I assume it is impossible given existing resources.

Alex.

---

From: Alex Conta <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:35:24 -0500

Alex,

> option; I assume it is impossible given existing resources.

You say you've been told "IETF does not have enough folks willing to do 
process management only, without the technical work".

I believe that.

But a separation of process management from technical work, in case of N 
WGs in IETF, will allow X to chair WG A, and do technical work in as 
many WGs as X wants except A, which is N-1 WGs.

So I do not see why you stopped?  Individual X can do both process 
management and technical work.

Regards,
Alex C.

---

From: Alex Rousskov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:00:22 -0700 (MST)

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Alex Conta wrote:

> > I have been told by many IETF people who know better that IETF
> > does not have enough folks willing to do process management only,
> > without the technical work.  Thus, I stopped advocating and
> > noticing this option; I assume it is impossible given existing
> > resources.
>
> But a separation of process management from technical work, in case
> of N WGs in IETF, will allow X to chair WG A, and do technical work
> in as many WGs as X wants except A, which is N-1 WGs.

True, but does not help on an IESG level where N equals 1.

> management and technical work.

You are ignoring the IESG-level context of this discussion, which is
very important. Robert said "at a level equivalent to that of IESG". I
responded that, at that level, we will lack manager-only volunteers.
There is no 3rd option in an IESG-level context. Robert then said that
we can hire those managers.

At the WG level, many manager-only volunteers exist. If we believe in
IESG as superpower, IESG should control those volunteers and we should
relax, submit improvement comments, and vote. If we do not, we should
move current IESG powers to WGs, eliminating the IESG overload problem
and creating other, different problems. In either case, WG Chair
authority seems like a non-issue (for different reasons).

Alex.

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 09:50:47 +0200 (EET)

> management and technical work.

My assumption is that a person participates in a WG because he wants 
to contribute to it (usually technically).

You assume that capable individuals are willing to do process
management in those WGs which they're not interested of (because, if
they were, they would be participating to the WG making them uncapable
to act as WG chair).

That is a huge assumption in the real world.  Chairing is a lot of 
work.  Why would I (or someone else) want to waste time on something 
that I don't even find interesting, while I could use the same time to 
contribute technically in other WGs?

-- 
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: Alex Conta <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:42:18 -0500

Pekka Savola wrote:

> [...]

I am not sure what you assume by "capable". People in IETF may have good 
technical capabilities, good people and process capabilities, or all of 
them.

Assuming the latter, the reality is that there are so many relationships 
between WGs, or between areas in IETF. You yourself probably follow and 
contribute one way or another to several WGs, based on your personal 
interest. Chairing one of these WG, would just imply that you would not 
be a document editor, for instance, prior or during chairing that group. 
By the way this is a rule that exist today.

On the other hand, I think it is quite possible that a "process, and 
people" capable person to find it very interesting to chair  a WG, in 
which it has no technical interest.

> work. 

Indeed chairing is a lot of work, and a lot of responsibility. I mean 
here process and people managament work. But chairs combine today this 
work, with too many technical roles: technical leader, architect, 
editor, reviewer, etc...  in the same WG. This is bad, because it is one 
of the reasons some WGs are so purely managed - too many - and IETF has 
timely delivery problems, and other problems as well.

Furthermore, the time when IETF was a couple of tens, or hundreds of 
people has long passed.  IETF is nolonger a "small business", where X is
50% of the employees, and is performing %50 of the jobs ... It is a 
prestigious international open standards organization, well attended, 
whith a lot of work to do, and a lot of responability on its own 
sholders, including the creation of an environment of fairness, which is 
essential for developing standards.

The average attendance in the last 5 years or so was way above 1000, in 
some cases going well over 2000. There is a large pool of people willing 
and able to do the technical work, and there is a considerable pool of 
people willing and able to do chairing WGs. People working in this 
industry make choices for a managerial path, or technical path in their 
companies. They make that choice in other major SDOs, and they can do 
that in IETF as well.

 > Why would I (or someone else) want to waste time on something

Back to your question, I will answer with a question:

Do you mean that you would accept to be a WG chair, only if you can be 
the technical leader, the architect, the editor, and the reviewer of the WG?

Alex

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:18:27 +0100

> which it has no technical interest.

Don't bet on it.  I'd say that was hugely improbable.

> timely delivery problems, and other problems as well.

I don't believe this is right - I don't think having technically capable
chairs have any negative impact on the timely delivery problem at all - 
probably the opposite.

	Henrik

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 08:39:25 -0800

Alex,

One possible issue with your proposal, which I think Pekka is trying to get
at (please correct me if I am wrong) is that up until now, IETF WG chairs
have primarily been technical people, engineers who are very involved in
developing the technology. If the role of a WG chair is changed to be purely
administrative, we may get an increase of "standards people" who don't do
much technical work but who are primarily there because their employers fund
them to contribute to standards administration, and who don't really have
much interest in the technology. Perhaps this is an inevitable consequence
of the growth of IETF, but it will certainly change the character of the
organization in a direction which I think many in IETF would not be
comfortable with. That said, I believe that some changes are needed to
ensure more impartiality during WG discussion and consensus calls.

            jak

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:11:15 +0200 (EET)

> technical capabilities, good people and process capabilities, or all of 

I meant "capable for the job of WG chair", in your context mostly 
implying just process management and people skills.
 
> timely delivery problems, and other problems as well.

Has has already been stated, I do not (either, as was stated) believe 
timely delivery problems (for example) are caused by the WG chairs who 
have too many (technical roles), on the contrary.

Perhaps you had an assumption, "if those WG chairs wouldn't be
reviewing and architecturing, the WG could get to a more timely
conclusion faster without WG chair's **interference**".  Maybe, not
sure if I agree, but I might.  However, this would seem to imply that:

 - a conclusion, even a very bad one, is better than slow progress, or
 - WG chair's technical input to the WG would be inappropriate or 
   misguided (i.e., WG chair is architecting something that will 
   collapse, but (s)he does not realize that)

I disagree about the former, and think that the latter is probably not 
so relevant (such chairs could probably be convinced of the problems).
 
> people willing and able to do chairing WGs. 

I'm not sure whether these are actually so large pools.  Let's take an
example of 1500 people coming to a meeting.  250 of them (17%) are WG
chairs, IESG, IAB etc.  Let's assume that about 500 (33%) are more or
less tourists, not too actively participating in the process (maybe
reading mailing list, or even responding now and then).  I'd guess
this number is higher, but let's stick to that for now.  Assume the
rest are those that could be active technical participants -- 750
people, around 7 per WG (evenly distributed).  That's not a whole lot
of folks.

The point is, I don't think there are too many folks who really want 
to put in the hours for active contribution (editing documents, etc.).  
In many WGs, this may range from between half a dozen to a dozen.  Not 
a whole lot.  The rest just hang around.  WG chairs have (often) made 
time commitments, and feel responsible for the technical progress, and 
could easily contribute if no one else steps up.  With this climate of 
huge "passive WG participation", this is a real problem in many WGs.

> People working in this 
> companies. 

Do those interested in pursuing the managerial path come to the IETF?  
I hope not, but if they maybe they could be leveraged :-)
 
> the technical leader, the architect, the editor, and the reviewer of the WG?

Yes.  I have zero interest in being only a process manager.

Note the use of _can be_.  If there is someone else editing the
documents, I probably wouldn't need (or want to) do it.  If there is
someone else authoring the documents of ideas which need to be written
down, maybe I wouldn't need to do it.  If everybody else was carefully
reviewing the products of the WG, maybe I wouldn't need to do it.  If
there was active, well-informed dialogue in the WG about the technical
directions, maybe I wouldn't need to try to give some coherence/vision
about the direction of the WG.

As said, in a perfect world of very active and diverse WG 
participation, many issues would not be such a big problem.  But 
that's not the world we live in.. :-)

---

From: Alex Conta <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 13:39:22 -0500

James,

James Kempf wrote:

> developing the technology.

I think I understood Pekka's message. Chairs being technical people does 
not have to change, nor involvement in developing the technology. Some 
aspects of involvement would follow more strictly rules that in fact 
already exist.

> If the role of a WG chair is changed to be purely
> administrative,
>  we may get an increase of "standards people" who don't do
> much interest in the technology. 

At the size and number of companies of the IETF meetings attendance 
nowadays, and the number of other SDOs that IETF members attend, there 
is a very significant skill diversity already.

> Perhaps this is an inevitable consequence
> comfortable with. 

You're absolutely right - the growth of the IETF has an impact. The 
aspiration to maintain a position of a major international open 
standards organization cannot be fulfilled without following some basic 
rules used in standardization.

I believe some of discomfort comes from the misunderstanding of open 
standardization, by confusing i)leading a technical project in a 
company, with ii) chairing a technical standardization WG in IETF.

In developing a proprietary technology in a company, the field is 
narrowed by a commonality of interests, and rewards. Consequently, a 
technical leader can do anything, from managing his group, to being the 
architect, to writing, and reviewing specs.

Standardization has some radical differences.  An important one is that 
work is being done by many people/companies of diverse, and/or 
conflicting, and/or competing, backgrounds, interests, and ideas. The 
importance of impartiality and equal access is proportional with the 
number of people, and their diversity.   Another different aspect is the 
reward - being a document author is the immediate personal reward, in 
which impartiality and equal access are important.

 > That said, I believe that some changes are needed to

Definitely,
Alex

>>the technical leader, the architect, the editor, and the reviewer of the
> 
> WG?
> 
>>Alex
>>
> 
> 
> 
>

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 11:05:09 -0800

> which impartiality and equal access are important.

Yes, this gets to the point of "tussles" in the Internet, very well
articulated in:

 Clark, D.D., Wroclawski, J., Sollins, K., and Braden, B., "Tussle in
 Cyberspace: Defining Tommorow's Internet", Proceedings of Sigcomm 2002.

and discussed somewhat in draft-iab-e2e-futures, a recent IAB draft.

            jak

---

From: Alex Conta <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:18:50 -0500

[...]

> about the direction of the WG.

I believe our last paragraph shows convergence.

Alex