Paul Wouters writes (on the 5th):
> I am in the process of handling an appeal on this decision,
I've now read through your message on the 9th regarding email "from Eric
Rescorla, Richard Barnes and Martin Thomson" and "from Tim Hollebeek".
Those messages still seem to be secret, but you say that the second
message called the outcome here a "process violation". You briefly
address this by claiming that the chairs "handled this case properly"
and by retroactively characterizing "adopt and park" in two ways that
I'll quote below.
Whether or not that's responsive to the second message (the public can't
evaluate this as long as that message stays secret), it's definitely not
responsive to my complaint about the lack of clarity.
Certainly there's a procedural problem if the chairs are announcing that
the decision resulting from the call is "The WG has consensus on X" when
the call was for something different from X. But my complaint here is
more fundamental: the chairs didn't issue a clear statement of the call
result in the first place.
Did the chairs claim "rough consensus" on adoption? Did they claim
"rough consensus" to "park" the document until there is "sufficient
external interest to publish it such as usage in another standard or a
groundswell of significant implementations"? Both? One can't tell.
Something is seriously wrong when an AD's characterizations of what the
chairs did can vary between the following:
* The chairs were presenting "adopt and park" as (in the AD's words)
an "alternative outcome that did seem to carry rough consensus".
* "Adopt and park" was a mere _proposal_ (AD's words: "the proposed
'adopt and park' solution) from the chairs in the absence of
"rough consensus".
Leaving the status unclear is confusing, error-prone, and abuse-prone.
It obscures what the people in power are actually doing, and improperly
shifts burdens away from those people to other parties who might object.
Consider, for example, how any of the following radically different
types of objections _could_ be on point or _could_ be a waste of time to
state in detail, depending on how the chair statements are interpreted:
* Objecting that the chairs were marking a document as adopted
while ignoring the RFC 2418 rule that "Working groups make
decisions through a 'rough consensus' process".
* Objecting that the chairs were misevaluating consensus.
* Objecting that the chairs were making up obstacles such as asking
for a "groundswell of significant implementations" rather than
sticking to RFC 7127 ("Usually, neither implementation nor
operational experience is required for the designation of a
specification as a Proposed Standard. However, such experience is
highly desirable and will usually represent a strong argument in
favor of a Proposed Standard designation").
It seems that the second type of objection was filed, leading to the AD
reversing adoption. Maybe this won't be appealed; maybe it'll survive
appeal; but in any case it does nothing to acknowledge or correct the
problem of WG chairs not feeling obliged to state decisions clearly.
> I removed your direct email address
Thanks! "Mail-Followup-To: [email protected]" in my message was already a
request for exactly that (I'm a list subscriber), but I realize that not
all MUAs handle Mail-Followup-To automatically.
> > For transparency, please carry out all discussion of this matter on the
> > relevant public mailing list ([email protected]), including, but not limited
> > to, any discussions of this matter among IESG members, IAB members,
> > agents of IETF Administration LLC, etc.
> Please stop trying to dictate how people should behave.
Writing "For transparency, please ..." is not dictating anything (even
when there are external constraints on point). It's simply a request, in
this case a request for transparency.
> I am not sure what is unclear?
As I said, the chairs didn't clearly state the call results. Your quote
of the vote assessment ("the ratio of the pros and cons was similar
making the consensus rough") begs the question: consensus on _what_?
> The WG Chairs are under no obligation to respond to every question
> asked
The WG chairs were obliged to make the status clear in the first place,
even without a question. Antitrust law obliges standards-development
organizations to provide due process.
[ chairs have "wide discretion" ]
> Which I interpret to mean that your question on whether the statement
> has WG consensus is not relevant.
The "wide discretion" quote does not override the RFC 2418 rule that
"Working groups make decisions through a 'rough consensus' process". It
also doesn't override the requirements in antitrust law.
> > That was also two weeks ago, and there was again no reply.
> The WG Chairs were waiting on me as AD due to us receiving an appeal.
> That is to say, it was not their fault but mine.
That doesn't justify ignoring clarification questions.
> I believe the messages they sent out were clear enough
Did they claim WG consensus to adopt the document? To "park" the
document?
> the received appeal is making this specific
> discussion overtaken by events
No, the topic is different. See above.
> > BCP 9 requires the chairs to "maintain
> > a publicly accessible record of" their work, including "complete and
> > accurate minutes" of their meetings, and including copies of "all
> > written contributions"; where are the records? The chairs ignored this
> > question.
> You keep grossly misrepresenting what this statement means
How do you claim I'm misrepresenting it?
Here's the start of Section 8 of RFC 2026: "Each of the organizations
involved in the development and approval of Internet Standards shall
publicly announce, and shall maintain a publicly accessible record of,
every activity in which it engages, to the extent that the activity
represents the prosecution of any part of the Internet Standards
Process."
The section continues with more specific requirements, such as "The
formal record of an organization's standards-related activity shall
include at least the following: ... complete and accurate minutes of
meetings; the archives of Working Group electronic mail mailing lists;
and all written contributions from participants that pertain to the
organization's standards-related activity".
This obliges IESG---you, for example, in your AD role---to publish the
email messages that led to your instructing the WG chairs "to mark the
document as Not Adopted".
---D. J. Bernstein
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
