On 1/22/2012 6:38 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
> 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.
So do I.
Let me, as a WG chair, urge you NOT to do it that way, but to let the chairs
handle the decision of what needs to go to active WG discussion and when.
This is the IETF model of roughly two decades.
It has a basic flaw:
The premise of the open IETF processes is that open collaboration means
broad-based review, diverse perspectives and broad-based support for whatever is
decided.
Closed processes make it more likely that there will be narrower
perspectives -- and therefore some aspect of the issue missed -- and less
support. It actually makes an AD less accountable for their Discuss. It
certainly puts more of a burden on working groups to guess at what the AD wants
and guess at what will resolve matters.
Working group discussion and other reviews are open and collaborative. All of
the details, major and minor, for handling concerns is public and on the wg
mailing list. Working groups already have the challenge of dealing with trivia,
irritations, and basic disagreements. Why should the direct, specific
objections of an AD be kept out of that forum? Or rather, why shouldn't the
person lodging them be automatically required to take them directly to the
working group? Why should ADs be immune from the requirement to take their
concerns to the chartered forum that is established for conducting exactly such
discussions?
Further, AD Discusses are now publicly documented. So the step you are
objecting to is a matter of convenience, not availability. And it streamlines
the resolution process by eliminating the information gatekeeping by whoever is
mediating between the AD and the working group: It puts the AD directly in
front of the folks whose work is being challenged.
The current model is that an AD lodges the Discuss but the direct reporting of
the fact and the explanation is left to be mediated by a chair or author. There
are cliches about the effects of having someone in the middle, trying to
interpret things.
By
all means, chat with your chairs and tell us what you expect. But let us manage
the WG discussions.
What you are calling for is not "managing wg discussion". It is gatekeeping the
resolution process with the AD. That's an entirely different and far less
healthy matter.
The majority of the non-DISCUSS comments are dealt with by such minor editorial
changes that opening the discussion up to WG comments will likely inundate the
entire IESG unnecessarily
"The entire IESG"? I don't understand how this suddenly puts the entire IESG
into the main flow of interaction between the AD who is blocking things and the
wg that is being blocked.
In any event, a Discuss is expensive for the wg. Why shouldn't it be expensive
for the ADs lodging them?
Even many DISCUSS comments are resolved with what will clearly be
non-controversial edits, which should well be reviewed by the WG, but which
don't need to have the WG engaged in the discussion.
This is a classic error in logic: The current mechanism often works adequately,
so let's ignore the times it doesn't and let's ignore its inefficiencies an
inequities.
My core point is that the /design/ of the current process is inherently flawed:
it violates the IETF's model for handling objections that pervades every other
aspect of IETF work.
In this case, in fact, Murray did bring the discussion to the WG, without your
needing to force it.
This places an undue burden on chairs and/or authors.
Put the onus on the AD: lodge a Discuss and you will be directly accountable to
/all/ of the people whose work you are blocking. You will then be required to
explain and negotiate directly.
ADs are smart folk. They often have extremely important and valid concerns.
They often see a problem that really does need addressing. Make them pursue it
in the forum where all other such matters get pursued: the working group.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
marf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
