Jon Postel Re: 202210301538.AYC

Mon Nov 7 15:59:28 UTC 2022

some minor observations from the vantage point of a former AD inline.

On 11/2/22 17:48, Donald Eastlake wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 12:03 PM Vasilenko Eduard
> <vasilenko.eduard at huawei.com> wrote:
>> It is believed by many that 2 terms should be the maximum for one position of any chair (if it is a democracy).
> Although this isn't a written guideline, many people believe that the
> first 2 years in an Area Director position are sort of a probationary
> period and as long as the AD does adequately, they should normally be
> continued for a 2nd term, if they want it. Being continued for a 3rd
> or later term should only be for superior performance and in the
> absence of an apparently stronger alternative. Note the following

In my observed experience, it pretty much falls to a incumbent AD, to 
recruit alternatives, assuming they are doing a tolerable job of 
addressing the needs of their working groups. having done my 2 terms I 
found the role to be more one of middle management then of leadership, 
with the possible exception  of organizing and promoting new work 
organization around BOFs and working group formation.

ADs are highly dependent on WG chairs and senior individual contributors 
when it comes to advancing any particular activity.

>     -- Having served in one capacity or another on six Nomcoms over the
> 30 year history of the Nomcom system and I can assure you that there
> are always at least 1 or 2 positions for which the Nomcom, after the
> normal nomination period, has only zero or one possibilities to choose
> between and it is common for NomCom to have to engage in substantial
> recruiting (aka "arm twisting") to get more nominees from which to
> choose. I just checked the NomCom pages and right now there are three
> positions where, for the 2022-2024 term, the current NomCom has only
> one person who has been nominated and agreed to run. So it isn't like
> they have a vast pool of willing people to choose between.
>     -- Most former Area Directors say that there is a substantial
> learning curve and it takes about a year before you are fully
> effective as an Area Director. So, if ADs were limited to 1 term of 2
> years, the IESG would only be 50 to 75% effective. With 2 terms of 2
> years, it is more like 75 to 88% effective.

Also, serving as an AD is significantly detrimental to one's  own work 
in the IETF, both from a time perspective and respecting any chair, or 
other positions in one's area that you would give up in the process. As 
a volunteer activity there is a significant community service aspect too 
it. Unless your career goals involve a sympathetic employer and a goal 
of joining and staying in internet governance long term ADship has a 
significant impact on your ability to contribute to the IETF. I did my 4 
years, that was enough.

>
> Furthermore, most Areas of the IETF have two co-ADs who tend to
> moderate each other and many decisions are made by the IESG, which
> consists of all the ADs, which is a further moderating effect.
>
>> It is evidently not the case for IETF - people stay in power for decades. It is just a fact that is not possible to dispute.
>> Yes, Nomcom is the mechanism for AD and above. I do not want to sort out how exactly it is performed.
> Well, the NomCom system is well documented in a number of RFCs.
>
> The most powerful single position in the IETF is the IETF Chair. As
> you can see from the attached image only one person has served as IETF
> Chair for as long as 8 years but as soon as the nomcom system was
> started, they were replaced. After that, only one other person served
> as long as 6 years, which was Russ Housley who I think was a
> particularly good IETF Chair. All others have been limited to 2 or 4
> years (1 or 2 terms). It would take a lot more work to do a similar
> analysis for AD positions but I believe you would find that the length
> of time in office for ADs was longer in the early days of the IETF and
> is now rarely over 6 years.
>
> In an earlier message, you said something about people retaining
> positions due to networking with other people. Well, I would say that
> is characteristic of all human organizations (unless you go with
> strict Sortition). See my RFC 4144 "How to Gain Prominence and
> Influence in Standards Organizations".

The IETF as a whole has activities (Working Groups) whose productivity 
on a given topic is largely driven by a small number of  individual 
contributors, these folks are entirely self-selected (authors, editors, 
collaborators, implentors). While there is not doubt quite a bit of 
survivor bias, networking and well as the capacity to be present (in 
person, remote) are necessary and rather expensive parts of advancing 
given pieces of work.

>
>> By the way, WG chairs have been put aside from any election mechanisms.
> Yes, there are people who have served as co-Chair of an IETF Working
> Group for long periods of time and there is currently no specific term
> of office for a WG Chair. But these days most IETF WGs have two
> co-Chairs, which has a moderating influence. Furthermore, Area
> Directors are where the real power is. The AD for a WG has the power
> to remove or appoint Chairs anytime so you have a very clear appeal
> path if you believe a WG Chair has acted improperly and failed, in
> your opinion, to rectify their error when you call their attention to
> it.
>
>> If any politician would manage to possess power for more than 2 terms - he would be immediately called "totalitarian".
> I would agree that if a position has substantial executive power and
> someone fills the position for a long enough time (perhaps in the
> range of 8 to 10 years) then there is an effect where it gets harder
> and harder to imagine someone else in the position, etc.  But I
> wouldn't necessarily call it "totalitarian" and the length of time is
> much more important than the number of terms. If someone is elected
> Speaker of the US House of Representatives for 3 successive
> Congresses, thus serving for 6 years (3 terms) in that office, they
> will have substantial clout because of this but they can't rule the
> House like a dictator against the wishes of a majority of the
> representatives of their party who can vote them out of the Speaker's
> office and elect someone else whenever they want. The fact that it is
> possible for a Speaker to be so elected for 6 or more years and that
> this has happened does not make the US House of Representatives a
> "totalitarian" organization and I would not call it that.
>
> Thanks,
> Donald
>
>> Even if he would say that there is a mechanism for it.
>> Eduard
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Donald Eastlake [mailto:d3e3e3 at gmail.com]
>> Sent: Monday, October 31, 2022 4:28 PM
>> To: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard at huawei.com>; North American Network Operators' Group <nanog at nanog.org>
>> Subject: Re: Jon Postel Re: 202210301538.AYC
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 2:37 AM Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG <nanog at nanog.org> wrote:
>>> 1.       What is going on on the Internet is not democracy even formally, because there is no formal voting.
>>> 3GPP, ETSI, 802.11 have voting. IETF decisions are made by bosses who did manage to gain power (primarily by establishing a proper network of relationships).
>>> It could be even called “totalitarian” because IETF bosses could stay in one position for decades.
>> I do not see how it can be called totalitarian given the IETF Nomcom appointment and recall mechanisms. Admittedly it is not full on Sortition (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition) but it is just one level of indirection from Sortition. (See
>> https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2020/08/20/indirection-the-unsung-hero-of-software-engineering/?sh=2cc673587f47)
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Donald
>>
>>>   ...
>>>
>>> Eduard