RE: [Geopriv] Irregularities with the GEOPRIV Meeting at IETF 68

[Dawson, Martin]

And there it is.

You're going to have to justify the accusation, John. Barbara S has
already said she thinks she'll be constrained to deploying a system such
as this - so it's certainly not a hidden agenda on her behalf. Other
than that, it constitutes about 1% of the reasons for needing a location
protocol that works above IP.

The conspiracy theory is quite simply wrong.

Cheers,
Martin

-Original Message-
From: John Schnizlein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, 20 April 2007 7:13 AM
To: GEOPRIV WG; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Irregularities with the GEOPRIV Meeting at IETF
68

It is worth recalling that a subset of the AD's and GeoPriv Chairs  
have pursued surprise changes to the advertised agenda before.

The agenda of the GeoPriv WG meeting at IETF 57 was distinctly  
different from the one advertised, with the inclusion of a  
presentation by Jon Peterson on draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-lci-option at  
the beginning.  During Agenda Bash, I objected to the insertion of  
this presentation without the knowledge of the authors, and was told  
that the author not present had been told.  Jon's presentation was a  
well-organized ambush with slides in which he raised a wide variety  
of "concerns" about the draft that he had not (for that matter never  
did) post to the WG mailing list.  On the day after the draft minutes  
of the meeting were posted on September 23, 2003, I posted  
clarification on the mailing list of the whitewash of the objection  
to the inclusion of that ambush presentation.

With modifications, that draft became RFC 3825, and represents the  
then-consensus position that hosts should obtain and control  
information about their geographic locations.  The alternative that  
may have been the hidden agenda at IETF 68 instead advocates that  
control of a host's geographic location reside with the network  
operator, and delivered through location servers.  The only  
"requirement" for these location servers appears to be the business  
interests of their operators, following the model of existing  
cellular telephone networks.  Advocates for this server-centric model  
have pushed a protocol called HELD, which may have been represented  
as an IETF product (based on individual-submission drafts) to  
operator groups.  Some of the same advocates have also undertaken  
attacks on RFC 3825 with arcane arguments about claimed differences  
between "uncertainty" and the resolution of a (latitude, longitude)  
location.  After one of the chairs requested a draft to clarify the  
meaning of resolution in RFC 3825, and the comments from IETF 67 were  
incorporated into a WG-approved draft, the chairs have arbitrarily  
labeled this draft: draft-ietf-geopriv-binary-lci-00 as "Awaiting  
revision by author team".

There is reason to suspect that the maneuvers in Prague are part of  
an agenda to move control over a host's location from the host to the  
network operator in order to create a business of providing it.   
There is a pattern with implications on the outcome of the WG, not  
just procedural lapse.

John

On Apr 18, 2007, at 8:59 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:

> Howdy,
>   I'd like to make some comments on the issues discussed below.
Before
> diving into the details, I'd like to make two meta-comments.  First,
> I believe that the chairs' messages noted that they had received  
> private messages
> of concern, and that their e-mail was expressed as a response to  
> those messages.
> As chairs, it is their responsibility to take the community's  
> concerns seriously
> and to respond to them.  My reading of their response is that they  
> believe
> that the IETF 68 meeting of GEOPRIV was sufficiently unusual that  
> it requires us
> to be very careful to follow our standard procedures in following  
> up the meeting,
> so that the overall process is obviously fair and is as transparent  
> as possible.
>   This serves the interests of those who were at the GEOPRIV
meeting at
> IETF 68, as well as those who participate but could not physically  
> attend
> the meeting.  Reading Cullen's response, it looks like he saw this  
> as the
> chairs' impression and reaction as individuals; maybe that is part  
> of it,
> but I believe is important to see this in terms of the view of the  
> participant
> community (of which the Chairs certainly form part).  I also  
> believe that their
> suggested response is basically "do business as usual, and make  
> sure that's obvious",
> which I believe is non-controversial as a way forward.
>   Secondly, I believe that this response has picked up some style
> elements of the original chairs' message and exaggerated them,
> falling into quasi-legal language that hurts us as a group of folks  
> tr

Re: [Geopriv] Irregularities with the GEOPRIV Meeting at IETF 68

[John Schnizlein]

It is worth recalling that a subset of the AD's and GeoPriv Chairs  
have pursued surprise changes to the advertised agenda before.


The agenda of the GeoPriv WG meeting at IETF 57 was distinctly  
different from the one advertised, with the inclusion of a  
presentation by Jon Peterson on draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-lci-option at  
the beginning.  During Agenda Bash, I objected to the insertion of  
this presentation without the knowledge of the authors, and was told  
that the author not present had been told.  Jon's presentation was a  
well-organized ambush with slides in which he raised a wide variety  
of "concerns" about the draft that he had not (for that matter never  
did) post to the WG mailing list.  On the day after the draft minutes  
of the meeting were posted on September 23, 2003, I posted  
clarification on the mailing list of the whitewash of the objection  
to the inclusion of that ambush presentation.


With modifications, that draft became RFC 3825, and represents the  
then-consensus position that hosts should obtain and control  
information about their geographic locations.  The alternative that  
may have been the hidden agenda at IETF 68 instead advocates that  
control of a host's geographic location reside with the network  
operator, and delivered through location servers.  The only  
"requirement" for these location servers appears to be the business  
interests of their operators, following the model of existing  
cellular telephone networks.  Advocates for this server-centric model  
have pushed a protocol called HELD, which may have been represented  
as an IETF product (based on individual-submission drafts) to  
operator groups.  Some of the same advocates have also undertaken  
attacks on RFC 3825 with arcane arguments about claimed differences  
between "uncertainty" and the resolution of a (latitude, longitude)  
location.  After one of the chairs requested a draft to clarify the  
meaning of resolution in RFC 3825, and the comments from IETF 67 were  
incorporated into a WG-approved draft, the chairs have arbitrarily  
labeled this draft: draft-ietf-geopriv-binary-lci-00 as "Awaiting  
revision by author team".


There is reason to suspect that the maneuvers in Prague are part of  
an agenda to move control over a host's location from the host to the  
network operator in order to create a business of providing it.   
There is a pattern with implications on the outcome of the WG, not  
just procedural lapse.


John

On Apr 18, 2007, at 8:59 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:


Howdy,
I'd like to make some comments on the issues discussed below.  Before
diving into the details, I'd like to make two meta-comments.  First,
I believe that the chairs' messages noted that they had received  
private messages
of concern, and that their e-mail was expressed as a response to  
those messages.
As chairs, it is their responsibility to take the community's  
concerns seriously
and to respond to them.  My reading of their response is that they  
believe
that the IETF 68 meeting of GEOPRIV was sufficiently unusual that  
it requires us
to be very careful to follow our standard procedures in following  
up the meeting,
so that the overall process is obviously fair and is as transparent  
as possible.

This serves the interests of those who were at the GEOPRIV meeting at
IETF 68, as well as those who participate but could not physically  
attend
the meeting.  Reading Cullen's response, it looks like he saw this  
as the
chairs' impression and reaction as individuals; maybe that is part  
of it,
but I believe is important to see this in terms of the view of the  
participant
community (of which the Chairs certainly form part).  I also  
believe that their
suggested response is basically "do business as usual, and make  
sure that's obvious",

which I believe is non-controversial as a way forward.
Secondly, I believe that this response has picked up some style
elements of the original chairs' message and exaggerated them,
falling into quasi-legal language that hurts us as a group of folks  
trying to
get this done.  As I read the original message, the core is that  
there were three
unusual aspects of the GEOPRIV meeting at IETF 68:  the schedule  
changed, which
had some unfortunate consequences; the meeting agenda changed more  
than usual;
and the way the group made progress was at the far end of our  
process.  Any
one of those, alone, might be enough to cause us to want to be  
careful of the
follow-up.  All of them together are definitely enough.  Rather  
than push against
how any one of these points got to be, let's see if we can agree on  
the way

forward.  I think, honestly, we already do, and bogging down in how we
got here is not that useful.  As you'll see below I see some  
mistakes I made
here, and I suspect others do as well.  Let's learn from them and  
move on.


At 1:23 PM -0700 4/18/07, Cullen Jennings wrote:
In the email below, the GEOPRIV chairs express 

RE: [Geopriv] Irregularities with the GEOPRIV Meeting at IETF 68

[Dawson, Martin]

OK James. Whatever.

-Original Message-
From: James M. Polk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, 20 April 2007 7:37 AM
To: Dawson, Martin; John Schnizlein; GEOPRIV WG; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Geopriv] Irregularities with the GEOPRIV Meeting at IETF
68

At 04:31 PM 4/19/2007, Dawson, Martin wrote:
>And there it is.
>
>You're going to have to justify the accusation, John. Barbara S has
>already said she thinks she'll be constrained to deploying a system
such
>as this - so it's certainly not a hidden agenda on her behalf. Other
>than that, it constitutes about 1% of the reasons for needing a
location
>protocol that works above IP.
>
>The conspiracy theory is quite simply wrong.

energy and misrepresentation doesn't make things right either


>Cheers,
>Martin
>
>-Original Message-
>From: John Schnizlein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Friday, 20 April 2007 7:13 AM
>To: GEOPRIV WG; ietf@ietf.org
>Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Irregularities with the GEOPRIV Meeting at IETF
>68
>
>It is worth recalling that a subset of the AD's and GeoPriv Chairs
>have pursued surprise changes to the advertised agenda before.
>
>The agenda of the GeoPriv WG meeting at IETF 57 was distinctly
>different from the one advertised, with the inclusion of a
>presentation by Jon Peterson on draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-lci-option at
>the beginning.  During Agenda Bash, I objected to the insertion of
>this presentation without the knowledge of the authors, and was told
>that the author not present had been told.  Jon's presentation was a
>well-organized ambush with slides in which he raised a wide variety
>of "concerns" about the draft that he had not (for that matter never
>did) post to the WG mailing list.  On the day after the draft minutes
>of the meeting were posted on September 23, 2003, I posted
>clarification on the mailing list of the whitewash of the objection
>to the inclusion of that ambush presentation.
>
>With modifications, that draft became RFC 3825, and represents the
>then-consensus position that hosts should obtain and control
>information about their geographic locations.  The alternative that
>may have been the hidden agenda at IETF 68 instead advocates that
>control of a host's geographic location reside with the network
>operator, and delivered through location servers.  The only
>"requirement" for these location servers appears to be the business
>interests of their operators, following the model of existing
>cellular telephone networks.  Advocates for this server-centric model
>have pushed a protocol called HELD, which may have been represented
>as an IETF product (based on individual-submission drafts) to
>operator groups.  Some of the same advocates have also undertaken
>attacks on RFC 3825 with arcane arguments about claimed differences
>between "uncertainty" and the resolution of a (latitude, longitude)
>location.  After one of the chairs requested a draft to clarify the
>meaning of resolution in RFC 3825, and the comments from IETF 67 were
>incorporated into a WG-approved draft, the chairs have arbitrarily
>labeled this draft: draft-ietf-geopriv-binary-lci-00 as "Awaiting
>revision by author team".
>
>There is reason to suspect that the maneuvers in Prague are part of
>an agenda to move control over a host's location from the host to the
>network operator in order to create a business of providing it.
>There is a pattern with implications on the outcome of the WG, not
>just procedural lapse.
>
>John
>
>On Apr 18, 2007, at 8:59 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
>
> > Howdy,
> >   I'd like to make some comments on the issues discussed below.
>Before
> > diving into the details, I'd like to make two meta-comments.  First,
> > I believe that the chairs' messages noted that they had received
> > private messages
> > of concern, and that their e-mail was expressed as a response to
> > those messages.
> > As chairs, it is their responsibility to take the community's
> > concerns seriously
> > and to respond to them.  My reading of their response is that they
> > believe
> > that the IETF 68 meeting of GEOPRIV was sufficiently unusual that
> > it requires us
> > to be very careful to follow our standard procedures in following
> > up the meeting,
> > so that the overall process is obviously fair and is as transparent
> > as possible.
> >   This serves the interests of those who were at the GEOPRIV
>meeting at
> > IETF 68, as well as those who participate but could not physically
> > attend
> > the meeting.  Reading Cullen's response, it looks like he saw this
> > as the
&

RE: [Geopriv] Irregularities with the GEOPRIV Meeting at IETF 68

[James M. Polk]

At 04:31 PM 4/19/2007, Dawson, Martin wrote:

And there it is.

You're going to have to justify the accusation, John. Barbara S has
already said she thinks she'll be constrained to deploying a system such
as this - so it's certainly not a hidden agenda on her behalf. Other
than that, it constitutes about 1% of the reasons for needing a location
protocol that works above IP.

The conspiracy theory is quite simply wrong.


energy and misrepresentation doesn't make things right either



Cheers,
Martin

-Original Message-
From: John Schnizlein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, 20 April 2007 7:13 AM
To: GEOPRIV WG; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Irregularities with the GEOPRIV Meeting at IETF
68

It is worth recalling that a subset of the AD's and GeoPriv Chairs
have pursued surprise changes to the advertised agenda before.

The agenda of the GeoPriv WG meeting at IETF 57 was distinctly
different from the one advertised, with the inclusion of a
presentation by Jon Peterson on draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-lci-option at
the beginning.  During Agenda Bash, I objected to the insertion of
this presentation without the knowledge of the authors, and was told
that the author not present had been told.  Jon's presentation was a
well-organized ambush with slides in which he raised a wide variety
of "concerns" about the draft that he had not (for that matter never
did) post to the WG mailing list.  On the day after the draft minutes
of the meeting were posted on September 23, 2003, I posted
clarification on the mailing list of the whitewash of the objection
to the inclusion of that ambush presentation.

With modifications, that draft became RFC 3825, and represents the
then-consensus position that hosts should obtain and control
information about their geographic locations.  The alternative that
may have been the hidden agenda at IETF 68 instead advocates that
control of a host's geographic location reside with the network
operator, and delivered through location servers.  The only
"requirement" for these location servers appears to be the business
interests of their operators, following the model of existing
cellular telephone networks.  Advocates for this server-centric model
have pushed a protocol called HELD, which may have been represented
as an IETF product (based on individual-submission drafts) to
operator groups.  Some of the same advocates have also undertaken
attacks on RFC 3825 with arcane arguments about claimed differences
between "uncertainty" and the resolution of a (latitude, longitude)
location.  After one of the chairs requested a draft to clarify the
meaning of resolution in RFC 3825, and the comments from IETF 67 were
incorporated into a WG-approved draft, the chairs have arbitrarily
labeled this draft: draft-ietf-geopriv-binary-lci-00 as "Awaiting
revision by author team".

There is reason to suspect that the maneuvers in Prague are part of
an agenda to move control over a host's location from the host to the
network operator in order to create a business of providing it.
There is a pattern with implications on the outcome of the WG, not
just procedural lapse.

John

On Apr 18, 2007, at 8:59 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:

> Howdy,
>   I'd like to make some comments on the issues discussed below.
Before
> diving into the details, I'd like to make two meta-comments.  First,
> I believe that the chairs' messages noted that they had received
> private messages
> of concern, and that their e-mail was expressed as a response to
> those messages.
> As chairs, it is their responsibility to take the community's
> concerns seriously
> and to respond to them.  My reading of their response is that they
> believe
> that the IETF 68 meeting of GEOPRIV was sufficiently unusual that
> it requires us
> to be very careful to follow our standard procedures in following
> up the meeting,
> so that the overall process is obviously fair and is as transparent
> as possible.
>   This serves the interests of those who were at the GEOPRIV
meeting at
> IETF 68, as well as those who participate but could not physically
> attend
> the meeting.  Reading Cullen's response, it looks like he saw this
> as the
> chairs' impression and reaction as individuals; maybe that is part
> of it,
> but I believe is important to see this in terms of the view of the
> participant
> community (of which the Chairs certainly form part).  I also
> believe that their
> suggested response is basically "do business as usual, and make
> sure that's obvious",
> which I believe is non-controversial as a way forward.
>   Secondly, I believe that this response has picked up some style
> elements of the original chairs' message and exaggerated them,
> falling into quasi-legal language that hurts us as a 

Re: [Geopriv] Irregularities with the GEOPRIV Meeting at IETF 68

[John Schnizlein]

It is worth recalling that a subset of the AD's and GeoPriv Chairs
have pursued surprise changes to the advertised agenda before.

The agenda of the GeoPriv WG meeting at IETF 57 was distinctly
different from the one advertised, with the inclusion of a
presentation by Jon Peterson on draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-lci-option at
the beginning. During Agenda Bash, I objected to the insertion of
this presentation without the knowledge of the authors, and was told
that the author not present had been told. Jon's presentation was a
well-organized ambush with slides in which he raised a wide variety
of "concerns" about the draft that he had not (for that matter never
did) post to the WG mailing list. On the day after the draft minutes
of the meeting were posted on September 23, 2003, I posted
clarification on the mailing list of the whitewash of the objection
to the inclusion of that ambush presentation.

With modifications, that draft became RFC 3825, and represents the
then-consensus position that hosts should obtain and control
information about their geographic locations. The alternative that
may have been the hidden agenda at IETF 68 instead advocates that
control of a host's geographic location reside with the network
operator, and delivered through location servers. The only
"requirement" for these location servers appears to be the business
interests of their operators, following the model of existing
cellular telephone networks. Advocates for this server-centric model
have pushed a protocol called HELD, which may have been represented
as an IETF product (based on individual-submission drafts) to
operator groups. Some of the same advocates have also undertaken
attacks on RFC 3825 with arcane arguments about claimed differences
between "uncertainty" and the resolution of a (latitude, longitude)
location. After one of the chairs requested a draft to clarify the
meaning of resolution in RFC 3825, and the comments from IETF 67 were
incorporated into a WG-approved draft, the chairs have arbitrarily
labeled this draft: draft-ietf-geopriv-binary-lci-00 as "Awaiting
revision by author team".

There is reason to suspect that the maneuvers in Prague are part of
an agenda to move control over a host's location from the host to the
network operator in order to create a business of providing it.
There is a pattern with implications on the outcome of the WG, not
just procedural lapse.

John

On Apr 18, 2007, at 8:59 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:


Howdy,
I'd like to make some comments on the issues discussed below.  Before
diving into the details, I'd like to make two meta-comments.  First,
I believe that the chairs' messages noted that they had received
private messages
of concern, and that their e-mail was expressed as a response to
those messages.
As chairs, it is their responsibility to take the community's
concerns seriously
and to respond to them.  My reading of their response is that they
believe
that the IETF 68 meeting of GEOPRIV was sufficiently unusual that
it requires us
to be very careful to follow our standard procedures in following
up the meeting,
so that the overall process is obviously fair and is as transparent
as possible.
This serves the interests of those who were at the GEOPRIV meeting at
IETF 68, as well as those who participate but could not physically
attend
the meeting.  Reading Cullen's response, it looks like he saw this
as the
chairs' impression and reaction as individuals; maybe that is part
of it,
but I believe is important to see this in terms of the view of the
participant
community (of which the Chairs certainly form part).  I also
believe that their
suggested response is basically "do business as usual, and make
sure that's obvious",
which I believe is non-controversial as a way forward.
Secondly, I believe that this response has picked up some style
elements of the original chairs' message and exaggerated them,
falling into quasi-legal language that hurts us as a group of folks
trying to
get this done.  As I read the original message, the core is that
there were three
unusual aspects of the GEOPRIV meeting at IETF 68:  the schedule
changed, which
had some unfortunate consequences; the meeting agenda changed more
than usual;
and the way the group made progress was at the far end of our
process.  Any
one of those, alone, might be enough to cause us to want to be
careful of the
follow-up.  All of them together are definitely enough.  Rather
than push against
how any one of these points got to be, let's see if we can agree on
the way
forward.  I think, honestly, we already do, and bogging down in how we
got here is not that useful.  As you'll see below I see some
mistakes I made
here, and I suspect others do as well.  Let's learn from them and
move on.

At 1:23 PM -0700 4/18/07, Cullen Jennings wrote:

In the email below, the GEOPRIV chairs express serious concerns
about the process surrounding the GEOPRIV meeting at IETF 68 in
Prague. In particular, they allege:

- That impr

Re: [Geopriv] Irregularities with the GEOPRIV Meeting at IETF 68

[Otmar Lendl]

Some comments from me regarding this issue:

First of all, as Ted mentioned, we have to note whether the chairs
themselves complain about the Prague session or whether they 
are just responding to complaint voiced to them in private mails.

As I read the mails, it's the latter which begs the question
why the complains haven't simply been sent to the list in the
first place. 

Anyway,

On 2007/04/18 22:04, Cullen Jennings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> To the particular concerns of the GEOPRIV chairs:
> 
> <> Agenda: The Area Directors did meet privately with members of the  
> GEOPRIV working group prior to the meeting at IETF 68. Indeed, we met  
> with as many stakeholders as possible, specifically to ascertain how  
> the group could move forward on a set of contentious issues which had  
> been unresolved for some time. In the course of these meetings we  
> solicited input on how progress could be made at the meeting, and  
> strongly encouraged working group members to find a path to  
> consensus. We came to believe that focusing on core issues that were  
> impeding progress, such as the longstanding disagreement on an HTTP- 
> based Layer 7 Location Configuration Protocol (henceforth L7LCP)  
> rather than ancillary issues like location signing, would be the best  
> use of working group facetime.

Anybody reading the geopriv list already knew that a number of people
(me included) were pushing for a resolution of the HELD vs. RELO
question. So I'm a bit at loss how one can surprised that this
issue featured prominently during the meeting.

> <> Scheduling: 

I've no comment on the scheduling.

> <> Consensus calls: There were indeed quite a few hums taken in the  
> GEOPRIV room in Prague. In fact, the manner in which the meeting was  
> run with regard to hums was not typical for this group - hums were  
> used liberally to hone in on areas where there was, and was not,  
> consensus. That much said, not all of the hums were consensus calls  
> on working group issues; quite a few hums were also taken on how we  
> should proceed, for example (taken from the minutes):
> - HUM : Are you informed enough to make this choice
> - HUM: Is it important to solve that today
> - HUM: Will the group accept a plurality for the decision?

Coming to Prague I was not optimistic that the WG can make progress
on the L7LCP issue. I was positively surprised by the steps the ADs took
in order to reach a decision.

>From my point of view, the ADs did exactly what they are supposed to
do: Listen to their constituency, learn about their needs and guide the
WGs towards progress. In this case the need was for a decision on the
single L7LCP standard.

As I remember the HUMs, this need was not at all in doubt. Everybody
agreed that we should resolve this question in this session.

I did not sense any preference from the ADs for one of the proposals,
only the clear desire to reach a resolution. The sequence of HUMs were
cleverly designed to lead the group towards *a* solution, whatever that
may be.

> >Cullen Jennings both called the consensus
> >and cast the last and tie-breaking vote in the room.

I can confirm Ted's account: Cullen just wanted to break the deadlock in
the room (what other options did he have at that point? Toss a coin?).
The Jabber count did swing the count in the other direction, so his vote
was irrelevant.

My summary is thus:

* I was positively impressed by the way the ADs handled a tricky situation.

* The WG got what it really needed and unanimously wanted: A resolution 
  of the L7LCP question.

  All those HUMs leading up to the final question were unopposed, I see
  thus no need to revisit them here on the mailinglist.

* The question the chairs should IMHO put to the list is simple:

  "Do we need to reopen the HELD vs. RELO decision?"

  If there are a number of clear statements that we need to, then we can
  go once again and try whatever RFC 3929 offers.

  Personally, I don't think the WG's aims are served by another 
  round of voting. This time and energy is better spent on
  reviews and updates to HELD. 

/ol
-- 
/ Otmar Lendl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, T: +43 1 5056416 - 33, F: - 933 \
| nic.at Internet Verwaltungs- und Betriebsgesellschaft m.b.H |
\ http://www.nic.at/  LG Salzburg, FN 172568b, Sitz: Salzburg /

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: [Geopriv] Irregularities with the GEOPRIV Meeting at IETF 68

[Spencer Dawkins]

Hi, John,

Not-an-AD would be better than an-AD, but an-AD would be better than wasting 
the WG's time.


I agree with your point, I agree with not making a hard-and-fast rule, and I 
agree that the expectation is that an-AD chairing a WG meeting would recuse 
self from subsequent IESG discussions.


Thanks,

Spencer

From: "John C Klensin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>




Spencer,

I want to express slight disagreement on one of your points (the
others are clearly, at least to me, on-target)...

--On Thursday, 19 April, 2007 08:03 -0500 Spencer Dawkins
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


...
- We have been encouraging greater separation of roles (an
extreme case of non-separated roles is a document editor who
is also the working group chair, the document shepherd, and
the responsible AD for the working group). We've been saying
that having ADs chair WGs in their own area is not a good
thing. We've been saying that having WG chairs edit major
documents in their own area is not a good thing. We may want
to provide guidance that having ADs chair WG meetings in their
own area, especially where there is no other person acting as
chair, is not a good thing, and that the ADs really need to
find someone else who is willing to chair the meeting, and who
is not involved as the next step on the appeals ladder.


If a WG is in trouble -- not in terms of the peculiarities of a
particular meeting, but more generally -- and especially if it
is showing signs of long-term deadlock or paralysis about
particular issues, and the usual chair(s) are not available,
then my first preference would be to have someone in the chair
who has a good knowledge of the issues and a responsibility both
for balance about particular issues and, as you point out, for
balancing fairness and progress.  In many cases, that finger is
going to point to the relevant AD(s).  I'd hate to make a rule
that would prevent their sitting in the chair for a particular
meeting if, in their judgment, that was the best way to
facilitate both fairness and progress.If they had to recuse
themselves from later IESG decision-making discussions on the
subject, I think that is a reasonable price to pay: if the WG
doesn't manage to reach conclusions, the IESG won't have the
chance to examine the relevant documents.


...
In summary - not a good situation, but one that is being
handled correctly at this point. Let's let the WG chairs, and
the ADs, do their jobs and see where we end up.


   indeed.
john







___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: [Geopriv] Irregularities with the GEOPRIV Meeting at IETF 68

[John C Klensin]

Spencer,

I want to express slight disagreement on one of your points (the
others are clearly, at least to me, on-target)...

--On Thursday, 19 April, 2007 08:03 -0500 Spencer Dawkins
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>...
> - We have been encouraging greater separation of roles (an
> extreme case of non-separated roles is a document editor who
> is also the working group chair, the document shepherd, and
> the responsible AD for the working group). We've been saying
> that having ADs chair WGs in their own area is not a good
> thing. We've been saying that having WG chairs edit major
> documents in their own area is not a good thing. We may want
> to provide guidance that having ADs chair WG meetings in their
> own area, especially where there is no other person acting as
> chair, is not a good thing, and that the ADs really need to
> find someone else who is willing to chair the meeting, and who
> is not involved as the next step on the appeals ladder.

If a WG is in trouble -- not in terms of the peculiarities of a
particular meeting, but more generally -- and especially if it
is showing signs of long-term deadlock or paralysis about
particular issues, and the usual chair(s) are not available,
then my first preference would be to have someone in the chair
who has a good knowledge of the issues and a responsibility both
for balance about particular issues and, as you point out, for
balancing fairness and progress.  In many cases, that finger is
going to point to the relevant AD(s).  I'd hate to make a rule
that would prevent their sitting in the chair for a particular
meeting if, in their judgment, that was the best way to
facilitate both fairness and progress.If they had to recuse
themselves from later IESG decision-making discussions on the
subject, I think that is a reasonable price to pay: if the WG
doesn't manage to reach conclusions, the IESG won't have the
chance to examine the relevant documents.

>...
> In summary - not a good situation, but one that is being
> handled correctly at this point. Let's let the WG chairs, and
> the ADs, do their jobs and see where we end up.

indeed.
 john



___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: [Geopriv] Irregularities with the GEOPRIV Meeting at IETF 68

[John C Klensin]

--On Wednesday, 18 April, 2007 19:08 -0400 Sam Hartman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 
> 
> Geopriv dropped because I'm asking a general question.
> 
> 
> >> AGENDA CHANGE
> >> 
> >> The IETF process allows for agenda changes during
> meetings.  At >> the outset of the meeting, the agenda was
>...
> I'm a bit concerned that I may regularly be doing something
> that the geopriv chairs feel is inappropriate.  I'd lik e to
> discuss with the wider community so I can change my practices
> if needed.
> 
> It's reasonably common that I will try to work with chairs and
> key participants in a working group to find ways to unstick a
> working group.  for example I may suggest to a chair that some
>...

Sam, 

It seems to me that the community has a choice between ADs who
set themselves up, or are set up by others, as all-knowing
authority figures and ADs who try to move WGs forward by talking
with people, mediating, negotiating, and generally exercising
leadership rather than authority.   I believe that the
community's preference for the latter is very clear, especially
from the number of criticisms that regularly crop up in response
to symptoms of the former.

>From the material that was posted, I have no way to deduce
whether this was handled optimally.  For example, under normal
circumstances, I would expect that at least some of the WG
Co-Chairs were aware that these other conversations were going
on, rather than being surprised by them.  But I can also see a
number of reasons why they would not be consulted, notably ones
in which the WG is seriously behind schedule and the ADs were
starting to wonder whether the existing WG leadership was being
effective.

As Cullen suggests, if there were clear indications that the ADs
were using their authority to force a particular outcome, that
should be dealt with by immediate recalls.   On the other hand,
if the one or more co-chairs and the ADs have lost confidence in
either other, or in the WG's ability to succeed, some
rearrangement of the WG --by termination, change of leadership
(whether by resignation or "firing"), or significant change of
charter-- would seem to be in order.  But that goes well beyond
the question I think you were asking.

john


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: [Geopriv] Irregularities with the GEOPRIV Meeting at IETF 68

[Brian E Carpenter]

I want to make three peripheral comments.

1. I congratulate the ADs for bringing this to the general list.
If we habitually resolve such difficulties openly, we strengthen
the IETF going forward.

2. I think we have a general problem of assuming that issues
"decided" in the meeting room and "approved" on the mailing list
by lack of complaint at the draft minutes have in fact gained
rough consensus. I'm very glad that GEOPRIV isn't assuming
that, and IMHO all WGs should copy.

3. It's aggravating when meetings get rescheduled on site, but we've
been warning people for a couple of years that "IETF Meetings
start Monday morning and run through Friday lunchtime, with late
scheduling changes." Those last 4 words mean what they say, after all.

   Brian

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: [Geopriv] Irregularities with the GEOPRIV Meeting at IETF 68

[Spencer Dawkins]

I'm following up to Cullen's note, but I've read Sam's note, Joel's note, 
and Ted's note. I tried to keep my own note short, but really admire Joel's 
brevity...


(Disclaimer: I'm one of the EDU team members who worked on the WG Chairs/WG 
Leadership tutorial. If I'm seriously off-base in my note, it would be great 
if people told Russ Housley (General AD, responsible for EDU), and Margaret 
Wasserman/Avri Doria (EDU team co-leaders).


- most of the time, it's not like this.

- the WG chairs are correctly raising the concern, and are starting at the 
right place in the appeals ladder. If this turns into an appeal, the IESG 
asks that appeals be clearly identified as appeals, and that people who 
appeal decisions state clearly what the desired way forward is.


- the AD(s) are correctly bringing the concern to the broader community. I 
agree with Cullen that recall would be (a) correct response to consensus 
manipulation, and agree with Ted that recall should not be the first place 
we go. As Ted noted, we've never used the recall procedure. If we get all 
the way to considering recall, it really is OK to use the procedure - we're 
just not there.


- the WG chairs are taking the right actions to confirm (or deny) the 
sense-of-the-room calls made in Prague.


- what we tell the WG chairs, and WG draft editors, is that their job is 
balancing fairness and progress. If you aren't fair, you'll spend all your 
time in appeals, so you won't make any progress, and if you don't make 
progress, it doesn't matter how fairly you stall. This is not a new theory - 
it was in the WG chair training when Dave Crocker gave the training for the 
first time.


- It's probably not a stretch to expect the ADs to be working to achieve the 
same balance. I agree with Sam that AD intervention to try to "unstick" 
discussions is part of the job. I agree with the GeoPriv chairs that AD 
intervention to choose a "consensus" consensus is not.


- what we tell the WG chairs is that ADs have the power to make a decision 
for the working group, in order to break a deadlock. Jeff Schiller (one of 
the ADs who did the WG chair training for several years) was very clear that 
an AD can say, "if you guys don't make a decision by date X, I'll make a 
decision for you". If this is not part of the community understanding, 
someone should be telling the WG chairs and ADs what the community 
understanding is.


- our formal process is that WG meetings don't make decisions, WGs make 
decisions on mailing lists and try to make progress in face-to-face 
meetings. If the ADs said they were making consensus calls during the 
meeting, that would be bad. If the ADs said they were asking for the sense 
of the room in order to understand where a decent number of participants 
stand, and that "sense of the room" would be consensus-called on the mailing 
list, that would be OK, in our documented process. If we don't actually 
believe this, we need to change our formal process.


- For both GEOPRIV and SPEERMINT, the question is whether having no meeting 
in Prague would have been an improvement over having meetings that were 
re-scheduled/held with substitute chairs. My recent experience with 
substitute-chair meetings has not been positive. It would be good to 
understand the community consensus here ("how badly do you need to have a 
formal meeting slot, given that you're not making decisions anyway?").


- We have been encouraging greater separation of roles (an extreme case of 
non-separated roles is a document editor who is also the working group 
chair, the document shepherd, and the responsible AD for the working group). 
We've been saying that having ADs chair WGs in their own area is not a good 
thing. We've been saying that having WG chairs edit major documents in their 
own area is not a good thing. We may want to provide guidance that having 
ADs chair WG meetings in their own area, especially where there is no other 
person acting as chair, is not a good thing, and that the ADs really need to 
find someone else who is willing to chair the meeting, and who is not 
involved as the next step on the appeals ladder.


I note that Jon is (with Russ, according to 
http://www.ietf.org/iesg_mem.html) the most experienced AD serving on the 
IESG today. If he thought this was OK, and it's not, the community should 
let the IESG know. Clear feedback is good.


In summary - not a good situation, but one that is being handled correctly 
at this point. Let's let the WG chairs, and the ADs, do their jobs and see 
where we end up.


Thanks to everyone involved for working to resolve this.

Spencer 




___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: [Geopriv] Irregularities with the GEOPRIV Meeting at IETF 68

[Ted Hardie]

Howdy,
I'd like to make some comments on the issues discussed below.  Before
diving into the details, I'd like to make two meta-comments.  First,
I believe that the chairs' messages noted that they had received private 
messages
of concern, and that their e-mail was expressed as a response to those messages.
As chairs, it is their responsibility to take the community's concerns seriously
and to respond to them.  My reading of their response is that they believe
that the IETF 68 meeting of GEOPRIV was sufficiently unusual that it requires us
to be very careful to follow our standard procedures in following up the 
meeting,
so that the overall process is obviously fair and is as transparent as possible.
This serves the interests of those who were at the GEOPRIV meeting at
IETF 68, as well as those who participate but could not physically attend
the meeting.  Reading Cullen's response, it looks like he saw this as the
chairs' impression and reaction as individuals; maybe that is part of it,
but I believe is important to see this in terms of the view of the participant
community (of which the Chairs certainly form part).  I also believe that their
suggested response is basically "do business as usual, and make sure that's 
obvious",
which I believe is non-controversial as a way forward.
Secondly, I believe that this response has picked up some style
elements of the original chairs' message and exaggerated them,
falling into quasi-legal language that hurts us as a group of folks trying to
get this done.  As I read the original message, the core is that there were 
three
unusual aspects of the GEOPRIV meeting at IETF 68:  the schedule changed, which
had some unfortunate consequences; the meeting agenda changed more than usual;
and the way the group made progress was at the far end of our process.  Any
one of those, alone, might be enough to cause us to want to be careful of the
follow-up.  All of them together are definitely enough.  Rather than push 
against
how any one of these points got to be, let's see if we can agree on the way
forward.  I think, honestly, we already do, and bogging down in how we
got here is not that useful.  As you'll see below I see some mistakes I made
here, and I suspect others do as well.  Let's learn from them and move on.

At 1:23 PM -0700 4/18/07, Cullen Jennings wrote:
>In the email below, the GEOPRIV chairs express serious concerns about the 
>process surrounding the GEOPRIV meeting at IETF 68 in Prague. In particular, 
>they allege:
>
>- That improper meetings occurred between the ADs and the working group 
>participants and that this "potentially harmed the integrity and transparency 
>of GEOPRIV and the IETF"
>
>- That there was "the appearance that there may have been an attempt to 
>manipulate IETF process to hold and predetermine the outcome of consensus 
>calls" on the part of the Area Directors.
>
>In the first place, the Area Directors take these concerns, and grave 
>allegations, very seriously. Area Directors who manipulate schedules and 
>agendas in order to predetermine the outcome of consensus calls should, in our 
>opinion, be summarily recalled, and if the GEOPRIV working group chairs 
>believe this transpired in IETF 68, we urge them to pursue such a recourse.

I urge them not to.  Let's try to work this out without creaking into effect a 
never-used
aspect of our process.  Pushing it to that extreme looks contrary to our usual 
effort
to achieve consensus; let's continue talking to each other instead.  If either 
the
Area Directors or chairs is no longer willing to talk about the problems and 
resolve
them, I think we're in a sorry state.  If we've gotten there, let's try and 
back away.


> While we speak to the particulars in detail below, in short we believe that 
> our efforts before, during and after the GEOPRIV meeting at IETF 68 were 
> limited to encouraging a set of participants to arrive at a consensus which 
> was long overdue, and did not extend to steering said consensus in any 
> particular direction. In this regard we do not believe we overstepped our 
> bounds, either in the letter or the spirit of the process.
>
>As indicated in my message of March 25, we agree with the GEOPRIV chairs that 
>the hums taken in prague need to be confirmed on the mailing list. As we all 
>know, the contents of a room in Prague are not equivalent to an IETF working 
>group; only formal decisions of this mailing list are definitive for the 
>working group. Too often working group minutes are published and completely 
>ignored, which only leads to further discord down the road when participants 
>resist that to which they are presumed to have assented. This is particularly 
>important in this case because opinion in the room was so closely divided. So 
>in the interests of making progress, please do review the results of Prague 
>carefully!
>
>To the particular concerns of the GEOPRIV chairs:
>
><> Agenda: The Area Directors did meet privately

Re: [Geopriv] Irregularities with the GEOPRIV Meeting at IETF 68

[Joel M. Halpern]

While any procedure is subject to abuse, the behaviors described by 
the RAI ADs, and described by Sam below, are both acceptable and 
appropriate.  They are sometimes even necessary.  To tell the ADs 
that they can not talk to some of the active participants in a 
working group in order to figure out how to get the group unstuck is madness.


If the face-to-face meeting were able to make a binding decision, and 
if the working group in the room was not given the chance to decide 
whether to accept the agenda change, and if all sorts of other 
conditions that did not occur had occurred, then maybe there would be 
a problem.


Frankly, the ADs did their job.  The chairs should now determine if 
the conclusions reached in Prague are teh agreement of the WG on the 
WG email list.


Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

At 07:08 PM 4/18/2007, Sam Hartman wrote:

It's reasonably common that I will try to work with chairs and key
participants in a working group to find ways to unstick a working
group.  for example I may suggest to a chair that some issue needs
more time or ask why an issue that seems to be blocking the WG is not
on the agenda.

I think I've even solicited presentations (with the chair's
cooperation) to help educate the working group in an attempt to
unblock some issue.



___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: [Geopriv] Irregularities with the GEOPRIV Meeting at IETF 68

[Sam Hartman]

Geopriv dropped because I'm asking a general question.


>> AGENDA CHANGE
>> 
>> The IETF process allows for agenda changes during meetings.  At
>> the outset of the meeting, the agenda was changed substantially
>> from the published agenda.  This change included removing the
>> discussion of location signing and integrity and replacing it
>> with an L7-LCP protocol consensus call.  However, evidence has
>> arisen that the the Area Directors, Cullen Jennings and Jon
>> Peterson, met privately with some participants of the GEOPRIV
>> working group to inform them of this agenda change.  Cullen
>> Jennings is the Area Advisor to GEOPRIV.
>> 
>> If such meetings did occur, we believe them to be improper and
>> to have potentially harmed the integrity and transparency of
>> GEOPRIV and the IETF.  It is not proper for officiates of a
>> working group to plan working group agenda changes and
>> privately inform only select group participants.  Doing so
>> disadvantages participants of the working group who have not
>> been advised of this change.  This is especially true for this
>> particular meeting as the agenda change precipitated 15 hums
>> during the meeting.
>> 


I'm a bit concerned that I may regularly be doing something that the
geopriv chairs feel is inappropriate.  I'd lik e to discuss with the
wider community so I can change my practices if needed.

It's reasonably common that I will try to work with chairs and key
participants in a working group to find ways to unstick a working
group.  for example I may suggest to a chair that some issue needs
more time or ask why an issue that seems to be blocking the WG is not
on the agenda.

I think I've even solicited presentations (with the chair's
cooperation) to help educate the working group in an attempt to
unblock some issue.

Generally these changes are discussed with the WG at the beginning of
the meeting and if someone objected we would consider their objection.

I can see cases where this would be an abuse.  For example if I
suggested giving proponents of one proposal time but not proponents of
another proposal.  Or if someone claimed they needed more time to
prepare for a decision but were unable to have that time because of
agenda changes, that might be very bad.

However I do not see the problem with using hallway time to try and
fine tune the agenda to actually allow working groups to make forward
progress.

Sam Hartman
Security Area Director


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: [Geopriv] Irregularities with the GEOPRIV Meeting at IETF 68

[Cullen Jennings]

In the email below, the GEOPRIV chairs express serious concerns about  
the process surrounding the GEOPRIV meeting at IETF 68 in Prague. In  
particular, they allege:


- That improper meetings occurred between the ADs and the working  
group participants and that this "potentially harmed the integrity  
and transparency of GEOPRIV and the IETF"


- That there was "the appearance that there may have been an attempt  
to manipulate IETF process to hold and predetermine the outcome of  
consensus calls" on the part of the Area Directors.


In the first place, the Area Directors take these concerns, and grave  
allegations, very seriously. Area Directors who manipulate schedules  
and agendas in order to predetermine the outcome of consensus calls  
should, in our opinion, be summarily recalled, and if the GEOPRIV  
working group chairs believe this transpired in IETF 68, we urge them  
to pursue such a recourse. While we speak to the particulars in  
detail below, in short we believe that our efforts before, during and  
after the GEOPRIV meeting at IETF 68 were limited to encouraging a  
set of participants to arrive at a consensus which was long overdue,  
and did not extend to steering said consensus in any particular  
direction. In this regard we do not believe we overstepped our  
bounds, either in the letter or the spirit of the process.


As indicated in my message of March 25, we agree with the GEOPRIV  
chairs that the hums taken in prague need to be confirmed on the  
mailing list. As we all know, the contents of a room in Prague are  
not equivalent to an IETF working group; only formal decisions of  
this mailing list are definitive for the working group. Too often  
working group minutes are published and completely ignored, which  
only leads to further discord down the road when participants resist  
that to which they are presumed to have assented. This is  
particularly important in this case because opinion in the room was  
so closely divided. So in the interests of making progress, please do  
review the results of Prague carefully!


To the particular concerns of the GEOPRIV chairs:

<> Agenda: The Area Directors did meet privately with members of the  
GEOPRIV working group prior to the meeting at IETF 68. Indeed, we met  
with as many stakeholders as possible, specifically to ascertain how  
the group could move forward on a set of contentious issues which had  
been unresolved for some time. In the course of these meetings we  
solicited input on how progress could be made at the meeting, and  
strongly encouraged working group members to find a path to  
consensus. We came to believe that focusing on core issues that were  
impeding progress, such as the longstanding disagreement on an HTTP- 
based Layer 7 Location Configuration Protocol (henceforth L7LCP)  
rather than ancillary issues like location signing, would be the best  
use of working group facetime.


While it is certainly true that the Area Directors knew they wanted  
to use the agenda time in GEOPRIV to make progress on core issues, if  
necessary at the expense of existing agenda items, there was no  
concrete agenda to that effect privately circulated prior to the  
meeting, verbally or in writing, to our knowledge. In fact, the  
agenda was bashed at the start of the GEOPRIV meeting by a  
participant, albeit one whose counsel on making progress the Area  
Directors had sought prior to the meeting. Critically, that agenda  
bash was vetted by the room, as any other agenda bash would be - this  
was not a change made by fiat of the Area Directors. We strongly  
believe that there was a will in the room to prioritize and resolve  
the issues which were bashed onto the agenda. We furthermore took  
specific hums about the preparedness of the group to make decisions  
about these issues, which under the circumstances were required to  
proceed.


<> Scheduling: There certainly were irregularities with the  
scheduling of the GEOPRIV meeting at IETF 68. That much said,  
scheduling the meeting track for the RAI Area is infamous, and last  
minute changes in timeslot are hardly unheard of (we had a similar  
one at the previous IETF). In this instance, the scheduling problem  
was ultimately caused by the unavailability of working group chairs.  
Two of the three GEOPRIV chairs, and one of the two SPEERMINT chairs,  
were unable to attend IETF 68 at all. It transpired that the  
SPEERMINT chair who could attend was unable to make the SPEERMINT  
timeslot due to a family obligation elsewhere in the world. As the  
GEOPRIV chairs note below, Henning Schulzrinne had previously been  
identified as a stand-in co-chair for GEOPRIV. We were thus left with  
the prospect of seeing SPEERMINT go forward with no available chairs,  
versus GEOPRIV going forward with at least one previously identified  
stand-in chair. We thus made a last minute decision to find the  
lesser of two evils by swapping the timeslots of the groups. Thi