Ted,
The
big problem others have been pointing to is that DISCUSSes are
not being used to say here is a technical issue, for which any
solution acceptable to the community is fine, but are instead being
used to say here is a technical issue, and here's what it would
take to satisfy me that it
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 12:58 AM
To: Joel M. Halpern
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends
(Re: Measuring IETF and IESG trends)
On 2008-07
The problems with the Discussing AD proposing text are more in the area
of scalability. I prefer seeing the authors (or shepherds) be active and
propose ways to resolve an issue. Or at least the initial proposal,
review and suggestions from both sides may be needed to converge.
This is not the
Of course, we also get complaints whenever anyone raises an issue
without providing text. So, by a strict reading of the argument, the AD
is hanged if he provides text (directing the working group) and hanged
if he does not provide text (you didn't make clear what your problem is,
and how to
On 2008-07-02 09:07, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
Of course, we also get complaints whenever anyone raises an issue
without providing text. So, by a strict reading of the argument, the AD
is hanged if he provides text (directing the working group) and hanged
if he does not provide text (you didn't
Laksminath,
My point was this: if a WG actually missed anything substantial and
that comes out during an IETF last call, and the shepherding AD
agrees, the document gets sent back to the WG. If the shepherding AD
also misses or misjudges, any member of the IESG can send it back to
the WG
Hi Lakshminath,
At 07:11 27-06-2008, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
Is it really necessary for all the battles to repeat on the IETF
list? Why can't the shepherding AD judge the overall consensus?
No, it is not necessary. One could read the WG discussion of the
topic instead of rehashing the
Brian,
Thanks for your response. Please see inline:
On 6/26/2008 4:23 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Lakshminath,
On 2008-06-26 23:43, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
On 6/25/2008 2:41 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
...
Our fundamental collective job is defined in RFC 3935:
The mission of the
On 6/26/2008 6:35 PM, SM wrote:
At 04:43 26-06-2008, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
But, surely the WG consensus counts as part of the overall IETF
consensus process, doesn't it? Please see the example in my response
to Jari. The shepherding AD (or at least the document shepherd) has
an idea of
Lakshminath:
Consider a hypothetical case: a large WG has strong consensus on one
of their documents, they believe it is within the charter's scope
and think that the document is in the best interest of the
Internet. The WG chairs assess the consensus, and forward the
document to the
On 6/25/2008 9:19 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 6/25/08 11:44 AM, Lakshminath Dondeti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would like to hear others' opinions (I was going to put together a
draft with some ideas on how we might define these roles, but I want to
hear others' thoughts before I do that) on
Melinda Shore wrote:
I think your points are valid, but I'm not sure what the
effect would be if you controlled for quality coming out
of the working groups.
The IETF works without any effort to measure quality or even uptake.
As a consequence, we have no way of determining whether our
Jari,
Thanks. Some thoughts inline:
On 6/25/2008 11:30 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
Lakshminath,
Better understanding of the type of behaviors in this space would
certainly be useful. And I don't want to disagree with your assessment
of the behaviors; many of them sound like something that
On 6/25/2008 4:28 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Thursday, 26 June, 2008 09:41 +1200 Brian E Carpenter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
And of course, individual ADs
have to think carefully whether a given issue is or is not
worthy of a DISCUSS, and sometimes they get it wrong. But
that will
On 6/25/2008 2:41 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2008-06-26 06:30, Jari Arkko wrote:
Lakshminath,
Better understanding of the type of behaviors in this space would
certainly be useful. And I don't want to disagree with your assessment
of the behaviors; many of them sound like something that
Lakshminath,
On 2008-06-26 23:43, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
On 6/25/2008 2:41 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
...
Our fundamental collective job is defined in RFC 3935:
The mission of the IETF is to produce high quality, relevant
technical and engineering documents that influence the
--On Friday, 27 June, 2008 11:23 +1200 Brian E Carpenter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
At one level I agree. But suppose that the set of people who
are active in the SXFG7M WG are so focused on the sxfg7m
protocol that they have all missed the fact that it's
extremely damaging to normal
At 04:43 26-06-2008, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
But, surely the WG consensus counts as part of the overall IETF
consensus process, doesn't it? Please see the example in my
response to Jari. The shepherding AD (or at least the document
shepherd) has an idea of the WG consensus as well as the
Hi all,
I am concerned by the following trends:
* Number of outstanding Discusses is growing. (Thanks to Jari's data)
* The extent of text changes as part of Discuss Resolution is increasing
(I have only anecdotal evidence on this; perhaps others have statistics).
* In some cases, members
On 6/25/08 11:44 AM, Lakshminath Dondeti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would like to hear others' opinions (I was going to put together a
draft with some ideas on how we might define these roles, but I want to
hear others' thoughts before I do that) on this topic.
I think your points are valid,
Lakshminath,
Better understanding of the type of behaviors in this space would
certainly be useful. And I don't want to disagree with your assessment
of the behaviors; many of them sound like something that appears in
practice. In particular, the shepherds are far less involved in the
On 2008-06-26 06:30, Jari Arkko wrote:
Lakshminath,
Better understanding of the type of behaviors in this space would
certainly be useful. And I don't want to disagree with your assessment
of the behaviors; many of them sound like something that appears in
practice. In particular, the
--On Thursday, 26 June, 2008 09:41 +1200 Brian E Carpenter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
And of course, individual ADs
have to think carefully whether a given issue is or is not
worthy of a DISCUSS, and sometimes they get it wrong. But
that will always be true, however we tune the process
23 matches
Mail list logo
