Re: improving WG operation
At 06:24 09/05/2005, Keith Moore wrote:
> All I mean is that, for higher level protocols, letting people do what
> they will ("the market decides") seems to me to be the best option.
there are cases when this is true. I don't think the cases are as simply
described as "higher level protocols" or "applications".
Unfortunately never true with IANA. Once a registry is set-up it prevents a
better one to address the same topic, even if disregarded by most of the
users it will be used by some and will stay around. That will make
up-grading its legacy a huge amount of convincing and probably years of
delays for the market.
jfc
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: improving WG operation
>> People should generally reject religious fundamentalism, including
>> what you said there. If you have an a priori case for this or that,
>> fine, but you seem to be making a mystical argument for a wildly
>> generalized claim.
>
>for some, "let the market decide" is a religious statement. it's
>generally based on an unexamined faith in market conditions as an
>effective way of making a good choice among competing technologies.
>
> For some it may be so (I agree) but apparently not you are I.
>
> All I mean is that, for higher level protocols, letting people do what
> they will ("the market decides") seems to me to be the best option.
there are cases when this is true. I don't think the cases are as simply
described as "higher level protocols" or "applications". it depends, for
example, on whether competing apps interfere with each other or with other
valuable network facilities, whether particular solutions will do harm to
networks and/or end systems when deployed (say, due to poor security), and
on the size of the market for a single solution vs. the size of markets
for fragmented solutions.
it's a bit like an argument that there shouldn't be any standards for
automobiles. which leads to more pollution, higher accident rates, higher
casualties, higher insurance rates and/or more expensive vehicles for
everyone. there are corrective mechanisms for some of these (as in,
people will tend to favor cars that have lower insurance rates) but some
of an individual's risks due to automobiles aren't influenced by his own
decisions so much as others' decisions.
> Yes, using your example, IM protocols fragment, interop suffers,
> there's lots of crap --- so what? It looks like it will probably sort
> out. Fretting over how best to impose governance over the situation
> doesn't obviously accomplish anything.
well, nobody is talking about governance, since we don't have any
enforcement mechanisms.
> There are faster, better,
> cheaper ways I think to get universally adapted standards in motion
> than wrangling with committees.
it's pretty difficult to build something that works well in the diverse
environments in the Internet without extensive discussions among
experienced people with a wide variety of interests. to the extent that
it happens, it's either luck (rare) or genius (even rarer).
> The main practical utility of standards very high in the stack is that
> they are written clearly, widely reviewed, and generally agreeable to
> people. One doesn't need a complicated government to support the
> development of standards with that utility: a few mailing lists and
> archives do most of the trick.
again, nobody is talking about a government. we're talking about a
mechanism to support engineering work among diverse and often-competing
participants, that will produce results in which users/customers can have
a high degree of confidence.
> Processes in which there is nothing
> available to fight over seem like the most efficient to me.
that's because you aren't considering the cost _after_ that process.
Keith
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: improving WG operation
Hallam-Baker, Phillip said: > >> for some, "let the market decide" is a religious statement. it's >> generally based on an unexamined faith in market conditions as an >> effective way of making a good choice among competing technologies. > > I don't accept the ideological case for or against free markets. > > My point here is limited to the case in which a working group is unable > to come to consensus over two disjoint proposals and each group refuses > to compromise with the other. > > Agreement would certainly be the best outcome in the case where the > differences are due to personality issues. But there are also cases > where one proposal is in fact distinctly inferior, usually because the > adherents are bought into some obsolete dogma or other. > > For example there is no way to negotiate a compromise between die hard > adherents to the end-to-end security primciple and proposnents of an > edge based security system. The two architectural views are entirely > incompatible and cannot possibly be reconciled. actually I disagree with you on that point (I agree with most of the rest of the above). there is at least sometimes a role for perimeter-based security in addition to end-to-end security. the trick is to understand the strengths and weaknesses of each as they apply to a realistic threat model, not to assume a priori that either one can exclusively do the job. in my experience the disagreement between die hard adherents usually amounts to an underlying disagreement about the threat model - where both sides may have oversimplified it. > What I have observed in these divisions is that it is actually quite > rare to have two factions of implementers. What is much more common is > that you have a group of folk who are building something and another > group of rock throwers who won't build much more than a bunch of > prototype code that only worksw with their own system. yes, but often this is because it's much easier to build something that implements a naively simple version of a protocol than to design and implement a protocol that will actually work well in a realistic range of scenarios that will be encountered in wide-scale deployment. that's why "running code" by itself isn't worth much anymore. > In other words letting the market decide comes down to who has the best > code and the best deployment strategy. depends on what you mean by "best". if you mean the strategy that gets a lousy product out into the market in the shortest amount of time and attempts to lock in customers, you're right. if you mean the strategy that provides the most long-term benefit to the community, you're wrong. there's no substitute for engineering. we would never consider building a bridge, building, ship or large aircraft, without careful understanding of the problem to be solved, multiple design/analysis/feedback cycles, etc. the investment in these is quite obviously so great that we want to minimize the potential to invest that much in a poor design. and yet protocol designers will happly invest similar sums - or even more - of their customers' money in poor designs. of course, sooner or later the market will probably figure out that investing money in half-baked protocols or implementations of those protocols is a poor idea. the market does learn, it just takes so long to do so that its errors are very expensive for everyone. Keith ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: improving WG operation
> "Tom" == Tom Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tom> All I mean is that, for higher level protocols, letting
Tom> people do what they will ("the market decides") seems to me
Tom> to be the best option. Yes, using your example, IM protocols
Tom> fragment, interop suffers, there's lots of crap --- so what?
I think our concern is that we have finite resources here in the IETF.
If you want a market decides standards, go set up an industry
consortium or go to a market decides standards body.
The IETF works best when people bringing technologies to it buy into
the idea of building rough consensus.
So, if you want the market to decide, and you don't have a
particularly good reason for being at the IETF, perhaps we're not the
best place for you to do your work.
One obvious question to ask is whether the IETF still has work to do
and is still the right place for anything. My answer is simple: let
the market decide;)
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: improving WG operation
From: Keith Moore
>> so "let the market decide" is a lousy rule. there's no
>> justification
>> for it.
> People should generally reject religious fundamentalism, including
> what you said there. If you have an a priori case for this or that,
> fine, but you seem to be making a mystical argument for a wildly
> generalized claim.
for some, "let the market decide" is a religious statement. it's
generally based on an unexamined faith in market conditions as an
effective way of making a good choice among competing technologies.
For some it may be so (I agree) but apparently not you are I.
All I mean is that, for higher level protocols, letting people do what
they will ("the market decides") seems to me to be the best option.
Yes, using your example, IM protocols fragment, interop suffers,
there's lots of crap --- so what? It looks like it will probably sort
out. Fretting over how best to impose governance over the situation
doesn't obviously accomplish anything. There are faster, better,
cheaper ways I think to get universally adapted standards in motion
than wrangling with committees.
The main practical utility of standards very high in the stack is that
they are written clearly, widely reviewed, and generally agreeable to
people. One doesn't need a complicated government to support the
development of standards with that utility: a few mailing lists and
archives do most of the trick. Processes in which there is nothing
available to fight over seem like the most efficient to me. That this
kind of anti-process process is even an option is a tribute to the
historical success of IETF but it would be weird to postulate a need
for IETF to do much more than what's already been done, imo, other
than to maintain the lower layers.
Surely there are grey areas but those don't strike me as obviously IETF's
business. For example, since IM is used in life-critical applications,
regulation may be in order -- but that's not a good role for IETF either.
It's swell to have leading experts advise regulation but having that occur
via IETF adds no value (and costs efficiency).
the speaker may hope that by exploiting some people's misguided
faith in market conditions, and exploiting the tendency of the
market to make poor decisions, he can silence those who would
propose a better way to do it.
You are absolutely right, imo, that jerks regularly try the trick that
you describe and that that's a serious problem that deserves
attention. It's the conclusions you draw from that that I don't quite
get.
Anyway, thank you for the uptake and I am starting to feel overextended
on my justification for posting to this list so, while I'm not against
replying further -- I'll be tending to return to my seat now.
-t
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
REMINDER - DHCPv4 options 128-223 soon to be IANA assignable (RFC 3942)
Just a friendly reminder ... First 6 month notification period ends soon! Hi: A new RFC was recently issued, RFC 3942 (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3942.txt): "Reclassifying DHCPv4 Options". The document is a product of the IETF DHC WG and expands the range of DHCPv4 option numbers that are in the IETF/IANA assignable range. The expanded public range reduces the site-specific options range that was originally defined in RFC 2132.. Old rangesNew ranges IETF/IANA assignable: 1-127 1-223 Site-specific: 128-254 224-254 So, why might you care about this? Many vendors have used "site-specific" options in the range 128-254 for vendor-specific purposes in shipping products. And, now that IANA can assign options numbers in the range 128-223 to future Internet Standard options, we need your assistance to prevent potential conflicts in the use of option codes in the newly expanded range. RFC 3942 has a mechanism whereby IANA will not assign any option codes in the newly expanded range, 128-223, for 6 months (this period will end in May 2005). During this 6 month period, vendors using options in the 128-223 range should come forward to let IANA and the DHC WG know of their use. IANA can be contacted at mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] and the IETF DHC WG can be contacted at mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] The vendor will also need to write an Internet Draft documenting that usage and advance that draft to an RFC. The Internet Draft can either be written by the vendor or by the vendor providing the material for documenting their usage to Bernie Volz (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) for inclusion in a general draft documenting several options. Once the Internet Draft has been published, it will be, at the vendor's discretion, published as an Informational RFC or entered into standards track for publication as an Internet Standard RFC. Therefore, please pass this email on as appropriate and contact Bernie Volz for more information. - Bernie Volz ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Voting (again)
Kai Henningsen wrote: moore@cs.utk.edu (Keith Moore) wrote on 27.04.05 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: I am not saying that ADs will never misuse their power. That's what the appeals process is for. I'm saying that under the current situation the vast majority of AD "edicts" (as opposed to directed feedback) are the result of WGs reaching the point of exhaustion without producing good designs. Fix that problem and it becomes reasonable to expect fewer and less onerous AD "edicts" and to push back on those edicts more often. WG exhaustion isn't always a WG problem, either. ISTR a case of a WG that got replaced its chair by the IESG, and told to do its work differently, two or three times - and *every* time, the new chair stopped posting to the list after a short time. (The last time, I think he came back after a significant timeout.) That's a recipe for exhaustion if ever I saw one. I might even call it active sabotage. I don't know about ISTR, but similar things have happened to the WEBDAV working group in the last two years (no, I'm not saying it's intentional; but fact is we got two new chairs who did not / do not seem to be very interested in the current WG work). Best regard, Julian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: text suggested by ADs
Sorry, I was imprecise. From: "Sam Hartman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Spencer" == Spencer Dawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Spencer> - the mailing lists are often not set up to allow posting Spencer> by non-members That's a violation of policy. Please see the IESG statement on spam policy; someone needs to be approving non-member postings for IETF working group lists. "allow posting without manual intervention" - the mailing lists I've administered for IETF had two settings, "allow posting by non-members" and "hold postings by non-members for approval". What I was trying to say was, this is probably sufficient for first feedback, but probably not sufficient for actually discussing a DISCUSS comment. I've copied non-members asking for their feedback on technical questions a couple of times, and the discussion between people directly addressed and the rest of the mailing list gets badly of-of-sync very quickly, because directly addressed participants start responding to postings before they are approved, even with the most diligent mailing list admins. Have a great day, Spencer ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: text suggested by ADs
> "Spencer" == Spencer Dawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Spencer> - the mailing lists are often not set up to allow posting Spencer> by non-members That's a violation of policy. Please see the IESG statement on spam policy; someone needs to be approving non-member postings for IETF working group lists. I think it is quite doable to work through discuss comments on the list. I don't completely agree that ADs should be sending the initial mail or that all discuss comments should make it to the mailing list, but I do agree with the general principle. Here are some things to consider: 1) It is probably desirable to aggregate comments together. It's probably desirable to include some general text letting a working group know what a discuss is and that they can push back, especially for first documents. Margaret's suggestion for mail to the wg copied to discussing ADs seems like a fine way to address this. 2) It is reasonable to let the shepherding AD and if desired the proto shepherd have a chance to respond to the discuss before the WG. This is not a requirement but I do think it will make things flow more efficiently. Certainly I'd say that not all discusses should make it to the WG list before the telechat. This is true especially when one of the shepherds plans to push back on the discuss. 3) IF the shepherding AD or proto shepherd cannot understand the discuss it is almost certainly worthwhile to get clarification before bringing it to the WG. 4) Many discusses are resolved with rfc-editor notes in a fairly efficient process. We should be careful of changing this; we don't want to slow down document approvals. It's probably desirable to let the WG know what if any changes are made in an rfc-editor note. It's probably reasonable for this to happen after document approval if the document gets approved fast enough; if a real problem develops in confirming WG consensus for such a change, we have a bit of time before the rfc editor publishes. We can revisit if the rfc editor starts getting fast enough that they publish within a week of IESG approval. --Sam ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: text suggested by ADs
Thoughts? Do other people think that it would help (efficiency or visibility) for all discusses to be sent to the WG mailing lists? Any thoughts on which of the three approaches above would work better? Margaret OK, let me see if I understand the problem - - the ADs probably aren't members of every mailing list for a document that they may vote DISCUSS on, and - the mailing lists are often not set up to allow posting by non-members I really like the idea of working through DISCUSS comments on working group mailing lists. This method seems to place more responsibility on the community, which I also like. Do we need to figure out how an AD can participate in a discussion on a mailing list they aren't subscribed to, in order to make this work? Spencer p.s. I'm also wondering how many active WG mailing lists are hosted on ietf.org, versus living somewhere else in cyberspace - most of the WGs I participate in are hosted there, but YMMV... ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Voting (again)
moore@cs.utk.edu (Keith Moore) wrote on 27.04.05 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I am not saying that ADs will never misuse their power. That's what > the appeals process is for. I'm saying that under the current situation > the vast majority of AD "edicts" (as opposed to directed feedback) > are the result of WGs reaching the point of exhaustion without > producing good designs. Fix that problem and it becomes reasonable to > expect fewer and less onerous AD "edicts" and to push back on those > edicts more often. WG exhaustion isn't always a WG problem, either. ISTR a case of a WG that got replaced its chair by the IESG, and told to do its work differently, two or three times - and *every* time, the new chair stopped posting to the list after a short time. (The last time, I think he came back after a significant timeout.) That's a recipe for exhaustion if ever I saw one. I might even call it active sabotage. MfG Kai ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: text suggested by ADs
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Hallam-Baker, Phillip) wrote on 28.04.05 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > In every other forum I simply make up the SRV prefixes myself and stick > them in the draft. The chance of accidental collision is insignificant. > There are far more Windows applications than Internet communication > protocols yet people seem to be able to cope with a 3 letter filetype > extension astonishingly well. Bad example. Very bad example. The number of collisions with 3 letter filetypes is high enough that I'll call "copes well" flat out false. MfG Kai ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: text suggested by ADs
On 5/7/05, Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >If someone has the authority to block the long-term work of a group of IETF > participants, they have an *obligation* to take their concerns directly to > those participants and engage in a direct process to resolve it. Dave, From my point of view, there are two assumptions that the IESG makes in this situation: 1) Since the responsible AD (or PROTO shepherd) is more familiar with the working group / document / other work / etc, they will be able to more effectively communicate the concerns. 2) The AD that registered the DISCUSS is always willing to actually have a discussion directly with the WG or authors if necessary. However, I think that the community tends to see instead: 1) The discussing AD is hiding behind a shield 2) The discussing AD isn't willing to communicate with the WG I've certainly seen responses to discusses that I've filed come back as "Well, I don't think this is reasonable, but I've made this change to satisfy the IESG," even though I would have been willing to have the discussion and yield to the WG's/authors' opinion. I do think that #1 is solving a real problem - I'm pretty sure that WGs/authors would rather get one message summarizing all of the IESG's issues rather than 10 messages from different individuals that might have overlapping issues, etc. However, if it's perpetuating the myth that ADs aren't willing to talk to the WGs/authors, we need to do *something* about it. Bill ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again))
I agree that electioneering is extremely undesirable. And it does currently agree to some degree. The question is whether publishing the list would actually cause a significant increase in that behavior. If we conclude that publishing would indeed result in such an increase, then that is a good reason to not publish the list of candidates. But given that electioneering already goes on, and that the feedback the nomcom receives is somewhat affected by the question of who can manage to discern the candidates from the leaky information flow, I am doubtful as to whether it would result in a significant increase. Yours, Joel M. Halpern At 01:33 PM 5/8/2005, Geoff Huston wrote: And there is some risk (small, I think) of people pushing others to endorse them. This would seem easier with a public list, because the nomcom is not left wondering why they got the supportive email. A risk not without quite extensive precedent over the years, and the concept of overt electioneering is one that personally I find a strange perversion of an already somewhat strange process. Are we after the the judgement of a few as to the best qualified individual for the role, or the one who is seen as being the "most popular" on the basis of a concerted campaign of electioneering? What is this body again? What is its purpose? Why does it exist? etc. Geoff ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again))
And there is some risk (small, I think) of people pushing others to endorse them. This would seem easier with a public list, because the nomcom is not left wondering why they got the supportive email. A risk not without quite extensive precedent over the years, and the concept of overt electioneering is one that personally I find a strange perversion of an already somewhat strange process. Are we after the the judgement of a few as to the best qualified individual for the role, or the one who is seen as being the "most popular" on the basis of a concerted campaign of electioneering? What is this body again? What is its purpose? Why does it exist? etc. Geoff ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: improving WG operation
> for some, "let the market decide" is a religious statement. it's > generally based on an unexamined faith in market conditions as an > effective way of making a good choice among competing technologies. I don't accept the ideological case for or against free markets. My point here is limited to the case in which a working group is unable to come to consensus over two disjoint proposals and each group refuses to compromise with the other. Agreement would certainly be the best outcome in the case where the differences are due to personality issues. But there are also cases where one proposal is in fact distinctly inferior, usually because the adherents are bought into some obsolete dogma or other. For example there is no way to negotiate a compromise between die hard adherents to the end-to-end security primciple and proposnents of an edge based security system. The two architectural views are entirely incompatible and cannot possibly be reconciled. What I have observed in these divisions is that it is actually quite rare to have two factions of implementers. What is much more common is that you have a group of folk who are building something and another group of rock throwers who won't build much more than a bunch of prototype code that only worksw with their own system. In other words letting the market decide comes down to who has the best code and the best deployment strategy. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: improving WG operation
so "let the market decide" is a lousy rule. there's no justification for it. People should generally reject religious fundamentalism, including what you said there. If you have an a priori case for this or that, fine, but you seem to be making a mystical argument for a wildly generalized claim. for some, "let the market decide" is a religious statement. it's generally based on an unexamined faith in market conditions as an effective way of making a good choice among competing technologies. there are cases where letting the market decide makes sense - but it's easy to find several cases where this is not so, and difficult to generally outline the set of cases where the rule does apply. there's no justification for citing "let the market decide" as a general rule, not even for applications, because there are too many cases where application functionality is severely compromised by poor market decisions. (which design shall we use for a bridge to cross the river between these cities? let's let the market decide!) the other justification for "let the market decide" is when the speaker believes that his financial interests will be better served by letting the market decide than in the absence of input from IETF, than by letting the market take such input into account. ultimately, the market decides in either case. the real intent of "let the market decide" within IETF is to try to keep individuals within IETF from influencing the market. the speaker presumably believes that the market will make a more favorable decision (for him) without IETF's input than with IETF's input. the speaker may hope that by exploiting some people's misguided faith in market conditions, and exploiting the tendency of the market to make poor decisions, he can silence those who would propose a better way to do it. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: improving WG operation
The original focus of IETF was to create and firm-up the Internet. That war was won. You're complaining that some application-layer stuff like IM isn't as orderly as you'd like. I don't see the connection between your complaint and the original focus. Even if that was the original focus, I don't think it is relevant any longer. I've been around IETF for 15 years and that has never been IETF's focus within that time. That doesn't mean the organization is nearing end-of-life, it means that as the Internet has changed, so has IETF. Now, refining a few core protocols -- that'd be great. Trying to be the government of all protocols -- huh? The IETF never has tried to be the government of all protocols. Keith ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: text suggested by ADs
Hi Dave, Let me try the simplest summary possible: If someone has the authority to block the long-term work of a group of IETF participants, they have an *obligation* to take their concerns directly to those participants and engage in a direct process to resolve it. Authority always comes with responsibility. In this case it should simply be that the authority to block a group has a responsibility to interact with that group. Directly. This seems pretty reasonable to me, and I think that this is one of the reasons why the IESG (pre-me) chose to implement the I-D tracker. I agree that it might be even better to generate mail to the WG mailing list (some folks may read the list but not follow documents in the tracker), but I'm not sure about the best way to implement this... The most common place where I personally block and/or delay a WG document is AD Review. I only issue discusses on a small fraction of the documents that come to the IESG, but I return AD review comments (blocking or non-blocking) on a much higher fraction of the documents that I am asked to shepherd. For some time, I have been sending my AD review comments to the WG mailing lists, rather than just to the authors and WG chairs, and it seems to work quite well. I also copy those comments into the tracker, so that folks who are interested in the status of the document can find them. Most of the time, my AD review comments don't spark any debate, but I think that doing this allows the WG to argue with me if they disagree with my comments. It also helps to improve visibility into how/why the document is being modified after the WG has declared it "done". I think that this practice may also increase WG awareness of the fact that there is now an action item for their editor, and that public scrutiny may result in the editor turning the document around more quickly (I have no statistics to back this up, it is just an impression). I think that it would also be helpful to send IESG discusses and comments directly to the WGs (for all of the same reasons), and there are two ways that I think we could accomplish this: (1) When an AD has an open discuss that he or she does not clear during the telechat, he or she could send a copy of that discuss to the WG mailing list directly. This is quite direct, but might be a bit tricky in practice due to spam filters, etc. because the AD may not be a member of the mailing list in question. It is also more likely to suffer from human error or omission, because the tracker is set-up to show us the documents for which we are responsible AD, not those for which we currently hold discusses. - or - (2) After the document appears on a telechat, the responsible AD could send any remaining IESG discusses and comments to the WG mailing list (probably in a single message), cc:ing the ADs who entered those discusses or comments. I sometimes do this already, and it typically seems to work well. If folks think that it would be useful (for efficiency or visibility), I'd be happy to start doing it for every one of my documents that still has discusses open after the telechat. This approach would also resolve an outstanding issue with the PROTO process, by making it clear when it is time for the WG chairs to start working to resolve the discuss issues. This approach is somewhat less direct, but perhaps more practical than option (1). It may be subject to some human error, but the AD will see the document in an "IESG Review" stage each time he or she enters the tracker, so he or she will have an opportunity to notice his or her omission. - or - (3) We could modify the I-D Tracker so that it will send mail to the mailing list at one of two points: (a) whenever anyone enters a discuss position, or (b) whenever a discuss position remains after the documents has been on a telechat. This is both indirect and impersonal, but not subject to human error. Thoughts? Do other people think that it would help (efficiency or visibility) for all discusses to be sent to the WG mailing lists? Any thoughts on which of the three approaches above would work better? Margaret ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: text suggested by ADs
On 7 maj 2005, at 21.32, Dave Crocker wrote: Let me try the simplest summary possible: If someone has the authority to block the long-term work of a group of IETF participants, they have an *obligation* to take their concerns directly to those participants and engage in a direct process to resolve it. Authority always comes with responsibility. In this case it should simply be that the authority to block a group has a responsibility to interact with that group. Directly. Seems eminently reasonable to me. Even seems practical not to mention good professional etiquette. I find it hard to understand why an AD would not behave this way (though I know it is not the common practice). I have always felt that authority entailed obligations and responsibility. And the more power a position has the more constrained the holder of that position should be in his or her behavior. a. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
