Internet DRAFT - draft-carpenter-community-leaders
draft-carpenter-community-leaders
Network Working Group B. Carpenter
Internet-Draft Univ. of Auckland
Intended status: Informational June 20, 2019
Expires: December 22, 2019
Some Thoughts on IETF Community Leadership
draft-carpenter-community-leaders-01
Abstract
This is a personal view of what the IETF community might expect of
its members who serve in leadership positions such as Area Directors
and IAB members. It is intended as personal input to the Nominating
Committee, but posted as a draft since there is nothing private about
it. A particular emphasis is placed on the need for such members to
be responsive to the community as a whole rather than to impose
personal opinions.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 22, 2019.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
Carpenter Expires December 22, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Community Leadership June 2019
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Appendix A. Change log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1. Introduction
The IETF has a relatively open but hardly democratic way of choosing
those who serve the community as Area Directors, members of the
Internet Architecture Board, and as IETF Chair. Job descriptions are
open and candidate lists are open. Feedback on individuals is
intentionally confidential to the NomCom, which tends to limit
transparent discussion of both abilities and potential problems.
Indeed, we shouldn't be in the business of naming and shaming those
who are willing to serve us. However, as a community, we must make a
fuss about decisions we don't like, and persist when we see a
technical error going uncorrected. In particular we should make a
fuss about failures to adequately consult the community about
important decisions, when leaders appear to impose personal opinions.
We do have a formal appeals mechanism, we do have the opportunity to
send frank feedback to the NomCom every year, and we do in theory
have the ultimate weapon of a recall procedure. But ultimately, if
the NomCom appoints someone, they are normally there for several
years.
However, there's a gap in the above mechanisms. The job descriptions
mentioned above are written by the body where there is a vacancy: by
the IESG for Area Directors and the IETF Chair, and by the IAB for
its own membership. That's logical as far as it goes, but it doesn't
give the community as a whole the chance to say what we think we
expect of those who serve in leadership positions, beyond their
obligations to the IETF process rules and their technical expertise.
Also, even with the best of intentions, those bodies write job
descriptions to replicate themselves and what they see as a smooth-
running operation. There is little scope in the job descriptions for
describing desirable changes in the status quo.
To some extent this gap is filled by the formal documents that
describe the IETF process, in the IESG and IAB charters, and in the
Tao of the IETF. But there is little explicit description of how the
Carpenter Expires December 22, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Community Leadership June 2019
leadership is expected to behave. This draft is a personal version
of a more explicit approach. It's by no means definitive and has no
authority. Discussion (on ietf@ietf.org?) is welcome.
A personal note: I have served in the past on the IAB (including a
spell as Chair), and on the IESG as IETF Chair. I'm quite sure that
I didn't live up to the expectations that follow. The people who
serve on the IESG and IAB are fallible humans. But it seems
reasonable to tell them, and the NomCom, what we'd like.
The NomCom also has responsibilities to select members of the IETF
LLC Board and of the IETF Trust. Most of the considerations below
apply also to those positions, even though the emphasis here is on
the IESG and IAB. My request to the NomCom is to consider the issues
below when evaluating all candidates.
2. Expectations
First, we expect leadership. Although the IETF is basically an
organisation of equals, we need Area Directors, the IESG as a whole,
the IETF Chair, and the IAB to set directions and gently ensure that
we make progress in those directions. (Yes, the IETF has to move in
multiple directions at once.) So whatever else happens, we need the
ADs, the IAB members, and the IETF Chair to behave as leaders. In
this draft, I'll refer to them as "leaders" from now on. However, as
leaders, they are servants of the community, not autocrats. They are
not in charge and must not imagine that they are in charge; they
should not impose personal opinions. People who think they are being
appointed to be in charge hould not be appointed.
The IETF is based on rough consensus. So we expect the leaders to
consult and listen carefully to the community, and not just to the
loudest or most articulate voices in the community. We expect them
to be assiduous in seeking consensus, and in understanding the
reasons for dissent. In fact, we expect them to enquire carefully
into the reasons for dissent, and to treat dissenters respectfully.
Specifically, consensus in the IESG (or IAB) is not the same thing as
consensus in the IETF. We do expect the leaders to take decisions,
but only when it's time to do so: after consultations, after the
facts are in and the community consensus is clear. Decisiveness is
good. Arbitrary or rushed decisions are bad.
Precisely because dissent is healthy and consensus is usually rough
rather than complete, we expect discussions among the leaders to be
as public, transparent and documented as much as is reasonably
possible. Fuzzy explanations of decisions are not good enough.
Carpenter Expires December 22, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Community Leadership June 2019
We expect the leaders to question the way the IETF does business and
to change it if appropriate, subject of course to community debate
and consensus.
We naturally expect the leaders to leave their company and personal
loyalties at the door. More difficult, we expect them to set aside
their own technical biases and preferences. This is tricky, because
we need their technical expertise. But arbitrary decisions are bad.
We expect the leaders to remember that a much wider technical
community looks to the IETF (and to the IRTF, the IANA service, and
the RFC series) to serve and protect the technical future of the
Internet. So listening to the community is more than just listening
to the IETF.
The IAB and the IESG both have important responsibilities in
appointing community members to various positions, such as WG chairs,
specific oversight committees, liaisons, and the like. We expect
them to make these appointments based on the good of the community as
a whole, not on their own preferences or biases. In some cases, such
as the RFC Series, the IETF Trust, or IANA, the community is much
wider than the IETF: it is the entire Internet technical community.
We need our technical leaders to be patient with those who don't
understand. This isn't so much about technical issues, which we all
hopefully know how to deal with, but about the reasons why some part
of IETF process is the way it is, or why a BOF proposal was refused,
or why a WG wasn't chartered, or why a topic belongs in the IRTF, or
why some work has been redirected to the Independent Stream, or
whatever. It's all very obvious to people who've been in the IETF
for years. Not so obvious to the rest of the world.
We expect the leaders not to work too hard. The IESG in particular
works just as hard as it makes itself work. More precisely, today's
IESG defines the work load for its successors, by approving WG
charters. If fewer WGs are approved or renewed today, there will be
fewer drafts to process in two years' time. We expect the IESG to
say "no" quite often. In the case of BOFs and workshops, we also
expect the IAB to recommend "no" quite often. Of course, the "no"
should be clearly explained, and rooted in community consensus and
technical evaluations
Of course, the leaders will follow IETF process rules and IETF
etiquette. But we also expect them to use common sense when the
rules turn out to be stupid, or simply inapplicable to a particular
situation. Either suggest a change in the rules, or make an
exception, while telling the community what's going on and asking for
feedback. (One of the historical strengths of the IETF relative to
Carpenter Expires December 22, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Community Leadership June 2019
competing bodies was our ability to put good sense over over-specific
rules. We need to regain that.)
Finally, there is a well-known and very human side effect of serving
in a leadership position: hubris. The modern definition is
"excessive pride or self-confidence" but the ancient Greeks had a
more dramatic version: "excessive pride towards or defiance of the
gods, leading to nemesis." Whichever version you choose, it's bad.
We expect the leaders to remember that they are fallible and that,
after a few years, they will be ordinary members of the IETF
community again. If they become arbitrary or peremptory in their
temporary leadership roles, they may well regret it later.
3. Security Considerations
Security considerations are not discussed in this memo.
4. IANA Considerations
This document makes no request of the IANA.
5. Acknowledgements
I decided to write this based, not only on my own observations, but
also on comments and suggestions from several members of the
community over the years. Of course I am solely responsible for the
current text.
Appendix A. Change log
draft-carpenter-community-leaders-00, 2018-09-08:
Initial version
draft-carpenter-community-leaders-01, 2019-06-20:
Update for 2019-20 NomCom
Author's Address
Brian Carpenter
Department of Computer Science
University of Auckland
PB 92019
Auckland 1142
New Zealand
Email: brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com
Carpenter Expires December 22, 2019 [Page 5]
