Hi Pete,
At 16:21 22-01-2012, Pete Resnick wrote:
I should have been more clear that I intended exactly your strategic
point: Engage.
And try to sift thought the misunderstandings.
Yup. And in this case, I think that, until I jumped in, #2 wasn't
going so well either. (That is, Stephen's DISCUSS comment was -- and
unfortunately is still written as -- "H has problems; you want
HMAC", and the WG's response was, "HMAC is overkill", instead of
figuring out that the problem was the lack of clear text on the use
case, and the solution being to clarify the use case, and probably
state that neither H nor HMAC was necessary.)
You were trying to address the DISCUSS comment.
So let me talk a bit about direct engagement. It's not the standard
thing for the IESG now, but you're going to see more of it soon.
During the last WG chair lunch, we had a discussion about copying
all ballot DISCUSSes and COMMENTs to the WG mailing list and I think
this is exactly the right thing to do. My plan is to, on a case by
case basis at first, add the WG list to the magic field in the
datatracker to which such comments go. The only issue is that this
has to be reasonably managed.
A WG Chair can always copy the DISCUSS and COMMENT to the WG mailing
list. This is the type of information that might be useful on the
relevant wiki.
Second, note that currently all DISCUSS and COMMENT messages and all
of their replies are Cc'ed to the IESG list. Just flipping the
switch on would be potentially a *lot* of email to the IESG list. So
we may want to figure out a way to split the "WG is mulling this
over" messages from the "we have a response to this" messages.
If "we" used our discretion to cut down Cc to relevant information,
it might help.
All of these are simply (?!) cultural changes about how direct
engagement will work. I think direct engagement is a *much* better
model, but it does have side effects, and I
It's a lot of work.
In retrospect, I completely agree. Stephen's DISCUSS comment is how
to address what he believes the issue to be, not a discussion of
what the issue really is. If his assessment of the issue is correct,
that might be a real timesaver, but if it's wrong, well, we get to
where we are now.
Yes. And it is an eye-opener on how the average reader might read
the document.
I suggest following up on the cultural change on another list if you
believe it is worth pursuing.
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
marf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
