Hi John, Thanks for your input. See below, in-line.
Regards, Jordi > De: John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Fecha: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 16:53:51 -0500 > Para: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > CC: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org> > Asunto: Re: Interim meetings planning [was Softwires Interim Meeting] > > Jordi, > > Let me make a very general observation, based on my experience > with the IETF. > > Where administrative procedures are concerned, the IETF > functions well when the IESG is given general guidance by the > community but then applies good judgment and discretion to the > situations that arise. If the community observes that the > IESG's judgment is not good enough, we readjust the general > guidance -- by complaints to individual ADs, by notes to the > IESG, by discussion on the IETF list, or even via appeals if > that is needed. If one or more specific ADs regularly abuse > that discretionary authority, they get abused in return on > mailing lists, in plenaries, in discussions with nomcoms, and, > if necessary, by recalls or at least serious discussions of > recalls. Agree, but I feel that there is a lack of administrative procedure here, which already caused some troubles. I'm trying to avoid repeating mistakes, improving the guidance and making sure the process is more open and fair. I fear that in this kind of situation (an Interim meeting unfairly setup), an appeal will not sort out the problem. > > By contrast, when we try to write down the specific rules that > should be applied, or the list of rules or steps they should use > in making decisions, and try to reach consensus on them, two > things happen, and happen over and over again: > > (1) We spend (I would say "waste", but you may > reasonably disagree) a huge amount of time discussing > both the details of the proposals and whether or not the > proposals are appropriate. In my personal opinion, the > IETF would be a better and more effective place to get > work done if a higher percentage of the community's > energy went into technical work than into discussions of > procedural details. Agree in that we need more people, and working more in technical documents, but we like it or not, procedures are needed to make sure that the technical work can be followed up. Otherwise, we may break our main rule: consensus, not sure if say here also fairness. > > (2) We get the details wrong, resulting in more time > being spent correcting the details of the rules that, > IMO, we might have been better off not having in the > first place. I really much prefer to avoid problems when they may be too late to get recovered. Details need to be put in place for that. > > In addition, if we get the details seriously wrong, the IESG has > historically responded by applying a meta-rule. That meta-rule > is that their first obligation is to keep the IETF functioning. > And, on that basis, once they conclude that whatever has been > written down and established by consensus makes no sense, they > simply ignore ignore it. That action creates a very unhappy > and unhealthy environment, whether it is appealed or not, but > often may still be better than the alternative. Not really sure if I've seen a case like the one that you describe, but really doubt it may be the case for what I'm proposing. > > So, for a case like this, I suggest that you might want to have > a conversation, with any AD you think is likely to listen, about > whether the present guidance is sufficient and whether > additional guidance or discussion would help. ADs persuading > other ADs about IESG matters and customs can be far more > effective than any of us writing I-Ds to pin down details. If > there are no ADs with whom you feel that you can have such a > conversation, then I think you need to chat with the Nomcom but > I, at least, have generally found ADs to be receptive on these > sorts of issues... even ADs with whom I generally don't get > along well (not that there are any of those on the current IESG). Agree, and indeed my proposal was the outcome of a few email exchange with an AD ;-) He actually suggested to include this in the venue-selection-criteria document, which for me, and also talking to others, was not the best choice ... > > Let's try to avoid yet another round of stretched-out > discussions on, e.g., how many days constitutes adequate notice, > how to measure the accessibility of a location, what conditions > are sufficient to justify an exception, and whatever other > questions start to arise as soon as one tries to lock down > specific rules. If an interim meeting is announced that is > likely to cause specific harm (as distinct from being an issue > of principles about dates and locations), complain to the > relevant AD and, if necessary, appeal the decision to approve > the meeting. But most of us, yourself certainly included, have > more productive things to do with our time than starting another > one of these procedural debate threads. > > Just my opinion, of course. And thanks a lot for it ! > john > > > --On Thursday, 26 January, 2006 10:02 -0400 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Hi Harald, >> >> In my opinion the 30 days rule is a good one, it may be >> possible to make it a bit flexible, just indicating 3-4 weeks >> before a meeting instead of 30 days. My comment, based on very >> recent experience, is that the rest of the Interim meeting >> planning procedure must be described more explicitly. >> >> The idea is not to have this in a new draft, or if actually we >> want it, make it in specific one, not mixed with anything else. >> >> The actual rules on this are at >> http://www.ietf.org/IESG/STATEMENTS/Interim-meetings.txt >> >> "The area directors will evaluate proposed interim meetings >> and conference calls to be sure that that the location, >> timing, etc. do not unfairly favor some subset of the >> ... > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ********************************************** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit Slides available at: http://www.ipv6-es.com This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
