On 1/23/2012 12:57 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
The editors
usually go off and make changes, and the working group reviews those
changes. I'm suggesting nothing more nor less here.
Actually, you are. You are suggesting that the negotiation between the AD and
the wg chair/authors take place in private, only consulting the wg at the end.
That's certainly the typical current mode for handling a Dicuss, but it is
consistently a problem.
The model you are endorsing treats the wg as a passive, post hoc reviewer.
That's not the official view of the role of a wg in the IETF...
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.
I very much disagree with you. What a side discussion does is allow
the editor(s) and the AD(s) to understand each other.
It perhaps allows that, but that means that the wg does not gain the same
understanding nor at the same time. It treats the authors and chairs as
privileged to more information than the wg.
The Discuss is with a wg product, not an author product.
(FWIW I'll proffer my own theory that ADs who provide vague, incomplete or
excessively narrow Discuss text or who prove to be unresponsive will tend to
improve significantly, when they experience the broad and immediate feedback
from a working group, rather than continuing to be permitted to conduct their
Discuss activity out of the sunlight of that forum.)
I have
similarly had side conversations with GenART reviewers, SecDir
reviewers, and other working group participants. That those
discussions didn't happen on the mailing list didn't compromise the
process. It allowed us to work out an understanding, and allowed me,
as editor, to propose some text, which the working group could review.
Side discussions are fine, but that's not really what you are promoting. You
are promoting a parental process in which wg management filters the primary
exchange with the AD.
Once again, why is it reasonable to have a different process for resolving
issues with ADs than for anyone else posting comments and challenges to the wg?
And you NEVER, in any of your editing in, say, DKIM, went off and
discussed things off the list? Every detail, major and minor, was on
the list at every moment of its development?
Another error in logic both in form and extent. There is a difference between
side -- that is, adjunct -- conversations that are sometimes held, versus
formal, primary exchanges that are always conducted. (Your casting it in terms
over 'every detail' moves towards hyperbole, which isn't helpful.)
The current model is that the formal clarification and negotiation takes place
in private. And, no, that's not the way wg work is done.
That some side, private discussions might and do take place is fine here, as for
all other situations, but not as the norm and not as the primary vehicle for
resolving things. THAT is a major difference from the way the rest of wg
business is conducted.
No one has said that an AD shouldn't participate in a working-group
discussion of the issues she brought up. All I've said is that the
chairs, not the ADs, should manage the working group, its process, and
its discussions.
Requiring the AD with the Discuss to interact with the wg does not hand over
management of the wg to them. Management by the chairs would remain unchanged.
I've had quite a few DISCUSS comments on my documents, which (the
comments) were resolved with one or two email messages, sometimes with
no text changes at all (there was something the AD didn't understand).
So?
While I have no *objection* to the DISCUSS being posted to the
mailing list, as a management point I see no reason to remove the
judgment from the chairs' hands of how to handle the conversation.
The current reality of standard working group process is that chairs do not have
active control over the conduct of other wg interactions. Their "judgement" is
relevant at a higher level than the gatekeeping of particular participants,
absent misbehavior.
Why does the interaction with an AD need to be different?
Further, AD Discusses are now publicly documented. So the step you are
objecting to is a matter of convenience, not availability.
Exactly. Nothing hidden at all.
Practically speaking, that's not true. First, the documentation is in a
separate venue that is not typically visited and second because the interaction
with the AD is offlist. Second, the negotiations are hidden.
streamlines the resolution process by eliminating the information
gatekeeping by whoever is mediating between the AD and the working group:
Nothing is "streamlined" when a minor clarification turns into
(perhaps) a large number of messages from the working group copied to
the entire IESG.
You are repeating the logic error: Some situations /might/ cause some problems;
so use this as an excuse for ignoring the larger problems that generally /do/ occur.
The meta-error is to look at one kind of problem, ignore its frequency or scale,
but use its (occasional) existence as a basis for denying the import of other
problems. That error is common in IETF debate.
It puts the AD directly in front of the folks whose work is being>
challenged.
Ah, here we get to a key point: the assumption that a DISCUSS is
adversarial.
A Discuss is an exercise of power. It blocks the progress of the document. It
is one person -- typically someone with no history of the wg activity -- telling
a small community that their work is not yet adequate. It is an AD saying NO
(for now).
One can be constructive or not, friendly or not, but that is inherently an
adversarial process. It frequently produces the real and frequent wg tendency
to want to appease the AD rather than worry about what makes for the best document.
That some ADs are highly judicious and constructive about Discusses is fine, but
it ignores that others are not. And nothing I'm proposing requires any
discomfort in the process. It merely requires full sunlight.
A DISCUSS does block progress of a document, but it's
often NOT a "challenge".
It is exactly and completely a challenge. By formal definition, a Discuss is a
challenge.
It's often simply a request to, well,
discuss something briefly.
It is not a 'request". It is a demand. One with teeth.
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.
Did I ever say anything about ignoring anything?
Yes. You are using the /possibility/ of some sturm und drang as an excuse for
the /guarantee/ that wg participants are filtered out of direct involvement in
dealing with a Discuss.
In fact, I said that when in the chair's judgment the discussion
Barry, you keep ignoring the core point I keep making:
The chair does not do that kind of prior restraint for any other part of
wg process.
Why is it reasonable for the chair to exert parental control over wg
content for this part?
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.
There's no question that the DISCUSS process is flawed.
Really? I haven't seen anything in your postings that suggests that's your
view. In any event, you've phrased that as a very broad point about Discusses
and the one I've been pressing is quite narrow.
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.
It's an "undue burden" on the chairs to manage their working groups?
I can't agree.
Would it be reasonable to require all participants to be required to first get
permission from the chairs or authors before bringing an issue to the list?
Why is it then reasonable to impose that gatekeeping for this particular
situation with ADs?
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
marf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
