This is probably something to be moved to a different list; I've at
least changed the subject, since we're now on the general topic and not
something specific to this WG. I'll ask for the chairs guidance, and if
they want this moved off somewhere else we can do so.
On 1/23/12 10:54 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 1/22/2012 6:38 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
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.
As I said, this is a different thing than what we have been doing and I
will not be doing so without first consulting with chairs and making
sure they can and will manage the discussion reasonably. I'm not going
to be springing this on anyone. But I do think that this needs to be
done in the long run and, with proper preparation, I think it can be
done reasonably.
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.
Right. One alternate means for doing this is moderating discussion. We
are generally loathe to do moderated mailing list postings in the IETF
unless things have gotten entirely out of hand in a WG, but we do allow
it. If in particular instances chairs feel that a WG would be ill-served
by a DISCUSS thread on the WG mailing list, moderation of the WG list
(or a separate list specifically for the DISCUSS) could be put in place.
That would leave things somewhat open. But I don't think this is ideal.
Remember, this is a change in behavior for all of us, so we do have to
make these kinds of changes with open eyes.
Further, AD Discusses are now publicly documented.
Right. But the additional worry I have is that responses to it are *not*
publicly documented (i.e., when chairs or editors reply to the AD for
clarifications, potential resolutions, etc.) unless the AD takes the
additional step to update their comments in the tracker. That certainly
needs to change. So, even if it is a moderated discussion, we need to do
something different to document that discussion.
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.
This is dependent on the AD *and* the WG involved. An AD might bring up
an issue that was clearly resolved by a WG many months (years!) ago.
Without a bit of restraint by the WG, a lot of sturm und drong can be
generated if folks don't just wait for the chair or cognizant AD to
explain, "We are aware of that issue, discussed it at length in the WG,
and resolved it in this way for the following reasons." (This, BTW, can
happen whenever anyone outside the WG comes in to participate without
the history, but AD DISCUSS ballots generate a lot more sturm und drong
because of how late they happen in the process and how solidly they can
knot things up.) So it's a bit more than convenience. It's sometimes
manageability of the WG process. But it's not something that can't be
handled.
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.
Because the current model is that all replies to the DISCUSS messages
are Cc'ed directly to the IESG list. And the IESG often does engage in
that DISCUSSion. So when we embark upon this model, we're going to have
to adjust several things that we're doing to keep everyone sane. Again,
it can all be handled, but we have to be clear with everyone how it goes.
In any event, a Discuss is expensive for the wg. Why shouldn't it be
expensive for the ADs lodging them?
Indeed, and it's expensive for the IESG as a whole. However, while
simply increasing the expense for everyone is one approach, it's
probably not ideal.
Again, I think having all AD comments (DISCUSS or COMMENT) go to the WG
list is the preferred outcome, but it is a cultural change. I want to do
it carefully and deliberately.
pr
--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102
_______________________________________________
marf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
