Hi Toke, On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 8:31 AM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <t...@toke.dk> wrote:
> Juliusz Chroboczek <j...@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> writes: > > > My feeling right now -- unless we f*ck up really badly, this is going to > > be a productive and fun working group. > > I agree. One thing that I would like to emphasise from the meeting was > the direction Juliusz set out for the working group (the "traditions" > part of his talk, for those looking it up in the slides/video). I > believe this is especially important for bridging the existing Babel > open source community to the IETF process and working group. > > The two most important points in this were "work happens on the mailing > list" and "running code required". While it was later clarified that > there is no formal IETF rules imposing any of these on the working > group, I believe they are fundamental for the kind of work we want to do > here. So I will heartily endorse these principles and hope that we can > build a working group tradition that builds upon them. I agree that it was useful to have an open discussion about how we'd like the WG culture to be and have the WG run. I found it useful to have. I'd like to clarify a couple points here, however, since there are a few subtleties. First, in at least theory in the IETF, work always happens on the mailing list for working groups. This is part of the formal IETF process. Specifically, all consensus calls and decisions have to be done or at least re-done/confirmed on the mailing list. Juliusz did a fine job of emphasizing why that is the case - to encourage participation of those who aren't traveling, to allow those whose written English is more persuasive or clear than their spoken to more easily participate, to let technical points be seen clearly without regard to presentation skills, and so on. Second, running code is great - but its lack shouldn't stand as a barrier to writing a draft or suggesting an idea. A long time ago, the IETF Routing Area required that any standards-track draft have two independent implementations in order for work to proceed. Bill Fenner and Alex Zinin wrote an RFC that removed that requirement, but it is still up to the Working Group Chairs to set policy for their WGs as to when drafts can progress out of the WG. For instance, in IDR, it is still required that there are two implementations. BESS just recently added a requirement for at least one implementation. There can be a bit of a cycle where putting a feature in code makes it harder to be willing to change or update a draft based upon others' technical concerns. It can also be faster to write a draft, get improvements and agreement on the idea, and then go write code. How this works can vary. In the Babel WG, I think that there are enough motivated people that testing ideas out in code and discussing them will likely happen. This is where setting the culture of the WG comes in. Regards, Alia > -Toke > > _______________________________________________ > babel mailing list > ba...@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/babel >
_______________________________________________ Babel-users mailing list Babel-users@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/babel-users
