> On Sat, 13 Oct 2001, Keith Moore wrote: > > > Neither POISSON nor any working group gets to do what it wants to do > > when it wants to do it. All topics have always needed IESG approval. > > while this is true, neither Poisson or its predecessors has ever been > quite like any other working group. in my experience IESG has felt > considerable pressure to follow the direction of Poisson, and some > reluctance to object to Poisson discussing a particular topic. > > The issue is not whether POISSON discusses any particular topic but what > is the result (actions after consensus) of that discussion, regardless > of where it took place.
The issues are far broader than that. We are talking about dismantling poisson and about what might replace it in its absence. Whether chartered for that purpose or not, poisson served as a public sounding board for problems with our processes. The number of problems that were aired in this way illustrates a need for better means of resolving these problems. I sympathize with those who think that poisson is no longer terribly effective, but I don't think that the mechanism proposed to serve in its absence is sufficient. > Assuming that's what you meant, you seem to be suggesting that because a > discussion took place nominally within the venue of a working group, > that gives it some greater standing than if the same discussion took > place on the general IETF mailing list. I disagree. That's rather an odd position. First of all, IESG has a difficult time ignoring the output of *any* chartered working group - even if it's garbage (as happens once in awhile). Poisson would not be an exception to this rule even if it did produce garbage - not that I can recall an instance of that. Second, in my experience from having served on IESG, several IESG members were indeed sensitive to the awkwardness of refusing to allow the poisson WG to make recommendations about process that IESG doesn't like. > furthermore there's an inhernet problem with IESG demanding that it have > tight reign on a WG that specifies the process that IESG must > follow. > > This issue is only interesting to the extent that you believe the IESG > does not already control POISSON. Clearly it has not controlled discussion on poisson, as several issues that have been embarassing to IESG or its members have been aired there with no evidence of censorship (in contrast to some working group discussions). And this discussion has been useful for the community. However, one might conclude that pulling the plug on poisson is an attempt to squelch such complaints. I don't believe that, but I do believe that the complaints that we've seen on poisson are indicative of more general problems that need to be addressed. > It appears that we need better mechanisms for quickly dealing with > each of two conditions: > > 1. process problems which are not addressed in our current documents > > 2. alleged violations of process on the part of those who are > running things. > > both of these mechanisms need to have clear and publically visible ways > of raising the issue, and inviting public comment where appropriate. > > Personally I'm in favor of the IESG doing its best to do what is > needed at the moment its needed. If it needs further review after that > then we do that, through a working group or whatever. Isn't this part > of the reason why we have the IESG? IESG is already spread too thin trying to do technical review and area management. and as for having IESG be critical path for appeals, in my experience it's not very good at that - it's too busy (and therefore too slow) and it's almost inherently too biased. IESG might be okay at handling disputes between WG management (someone not on IESG) and a WG participant, but it is *really* taxed by trying to do a fair job at handling disputes between IESG participants and other parties. I don't doubt the intentions of the IESG members, but political realities make it very difficult for any IESG member to admit that another IESG member may have violated process. > I have no particular opinion on our appeals process, having no direct > experience with it. I'm not inclined to participate in changing > something I don't think is broken, but I'm certainly open to being > convinced that something is broken. I've seen it from the inside. > I'm still of the opinion that the general ietf mailing list is a clear > and publically visible way to raise and discuss, inviting public comment > as needed, any such issues. I do not (yet?) understand why the poised > list is special in this regard. It was special because at one time it had a charter to work on process issues, and because it became the well-known forum for discussing such issues. I'm not saying that Poisson has to stay in place, or even that the main IETF list is not a good place to discuss such issues. What I'm saying is that we have problems which cannot be satisfactorily addressed merely by telling people "bring this discussion to the IETF list". Keith
