Re: Proposal for a revised procedure-making process for the IETF
grenville armitage wrote: Brian E Carpenter wrote: [...] as I read it, it was to take the discussion to an ad hoc WG after exposing the issue on the main list. How is that different from exposing an issue on the 'main list' and then telling people to subscribe-to/jump-to poisson for continued discussion? What's to stop these ad hoc WGs from ending being populated only by people interested in process discussions anyway? Seems like we'll be back to the purported problem with poisson, but with more mailing list creation/removal overhead. Well, that is an experimental question. My feeling is that if a specific process question comes up - let's say, a proposal to increase IAB membership to 99 seats, to create a silly example - we could have a much more focussed discussion in the iab99 WG with a very limited charter than has proved possible in recent years in Poisson. And really that is the only change that Harald has proposed, when you drill down. Brian
Re: Proposal for a revised procedure-making process for the IETF
Date:Mon, 15 Oct 2001 13:34:57 -0400 (EDT) From:James M Galvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | My interpretation of that charter (which I'll boldly proclaim is a | shared interpretation by the General AD and my co-Chair) is that when an | issue is discussed that clearly falls within the purview of POISSON we | still need approval to promote that issue to a work item of the working | group. From where exactly do you draw that conclusion. Nothing in the IETF processes I have ever read, or heard of, suggests anything like that. | You see, it is not within the purview of POISSON to decide by itself, | without approval from the IESG, that any process related document is | fair game to be opened, reviewed, and revised whenever POISSON decides | it should be done. I can not imagine where you got any expectation at | all that that was how things worked. We seem to differ as to how the IETF should function - perhaps along the lines John K suggested in his reply to me. I don't view the IETF as a bunch of volunteers all clustered round waiting to do the bidding of the IESG, whatever that might be. IMO, the members of the IETF are in control - the IESG are just the management we appoint to help things run smoothly (or smoother anyway). It is the IETF that decides what it wants to do, and when - not the IESG (though of course, the IESG given its insights into everything that is happening, can often be the first to identify areas that need work) | I can not think of a single analog | of such a procedure in any organization anywhere. You mean you can't think of any organisation where the members can decide that something should be altered? Not, for example, any random company where some number of the members can demand a special general meeting and put items on the agenda to be discussed? None at all??? Certainly the way the IETF works, in all regards, is different to most other organisations - not having any real defined members as such makes a difference. | That is not to say | that organizations to not have a way to revise their processes, but | there are checks and balances. The decision does not come from one side | of the issue. poisson is one side??? What is the other side supposed to be? Ie: who is the enemy? poisson is supposed to be (at least representative of) all of us - just the same as any other WG. Anyone can be a part of it, and all viewpoints can be expressed. Checks and balances, sure, we have those - first we have to get WG consensus (rough consensus) on some outcome, then we need to get the rest of the IETF (via last call) to agree to it, and even then, the procedures allow the IESG to veto it (subject to appeal of course). There are plenty of checks and balances already - we don't need to be under anyone's thumb before deciding to do some work .. just getting consensus (rough) in the WG that we should undertake something is a big enough barrier as it is. | In principle this is precisely the process of updating the charter to | indicate the actual work item. It would be, if the charter needed to be updated. For very good reason, poisson's charter is very broad as it is... | At no time was discussion ever cut off on a relevant issue. Taking on | an issue as a work item has been cut-off. From my perspective and in my | experience this is due process. You will note that I haven't been complaining about process issues wrt poisson (or not until this attempt to kill it). I have no complains about how the group has appeared to have been run at least - not now, and I haven't in the past. If this background IESG approval seeking has been happening, it can't have materially affected anything, or I suspect that you would have heard the complaints before now. And if that's true, then I wonder whether it was ever necessary in the first place. kre
Re: Proposal for a revised procedure-making process for the IETF
One of my old college roommates, Bud Vieira, did some work on the system with Flores and discovered that when users self-labelled their messages, almost everything got labelled as a comment, whatever category language-action theory might have assigned. It's interesting that authors don't want to think as carefully about the labelling for a message as the message itself. Actually, if I understand his results correctly, it was more that the users of the system did not want to be overtly demanding, requesting, accepting,declining; they wanted to avoid being pinned down so that they could cloak demands, requests, etc. as comments. This was more normal social behavior in that context, in his reading of the results. Now that I see it in more detail, your proposal is actually different from the Winograd Flores work; since you focus on the phase of the discussion rather than character of the individual message, you may not have the same problem with the political behavior of the participants. I believe, however, you will still have the same problems with the system as a barrier to participation. regards, Ted Hardie What I had in mind for a prototype was: - a user interface via which messages are submitted, which reminds the user what phase the discussion is currently in prior to the message being submitted, and which insists that the user specify the phase of the message being submitted. (comment is not a phase) it would accept messages that are out-of-phase but the presentation of messages to readers would be separated by phase. presumably the current phase of the discussion would get the most attention. - a means by which a moderator/chair could reclassify already posted messages or threads as out-of-phase. for visibility, the message would be tagged as reclassified. All of this would be experimental, of course, so we shouldn't expect any of this to work on the first try. But we're going to need to allow WGs to do some experimentation if we want to find better ways to do our work over the net. Keith
Re: Proposal for a revised procedure-making process for the IETF
Well, that is an experimental question. My feeling is that if a specific process question comes up - let's say, a proposal to increase IAB membership to 99 seats, to create a silly example - we could have a much more focussed discussion in the iab99 WG with a very limited charter than has proved possible in recent years in Poisson. Problem is, process questions are not always that specific. If for example there were a growing sense that WGs take too long, that IESG approves too many broken documents, and that too many WGs are having an adverse effect on the Internet architecture - the solution to this problem might somehow involve IETF process, but we would not be likely to find a solution by chartering a WG that is centered around someone's draft proposal. Keith
Re: Proposal for a revised procedure-making process for the IETF
Keith writes: It seems to me that we need to find a way to impose some sort of discipline on the conversations - in particular, to clearly separate - recognition and identification of a problem - determining whether consensus exists for a problem statement - proposals for a solution - feedback/comment/critique on such proposals - determining whether consensus exists for such proposals separation is probably needed both in message labelling and time. in other words, it's not enough if each message is clearly labeled according to its purpose (though this would help immensely); it's also necessary to discourage indefinite discussion in any of these phases, and to have clear transitions from one phase to another. This has been tried. Terry Winograd and Fernando Flores set up a company that tried to apply the language-action model to organizational messaging, using categories that split the messages into the action associated with the message. Many of their categories match the ones you have above. One of my old college roommates, Bud Vieira, did some work on the system with Flores and discovered that when users self-labelled their messages, almost everything got labelled as a comment, whatever category language-action theory might have assigned. Interestingly, this was true whether you were dealing with a flat organization or a highly structured one, though for apparently different reasons. It is possible, of course, to develop an organizational culture which agrees upon and uses specific categories for specific types of communication, but this a barrier to entry and likely to have some interesting mismatches between naive interpretation of labels and their organizational meaning. regards, Ted Hardie
Re: Proposal for a revised procedure-making process for the IETF
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. And that is just the problem, with Poisson being populated by a small subset of active IETF participants and a number of people whose main interest is in fact process issues. yes, but we have that problem with *every* working group whose decisions affects those whose core interest is not that group. nat, midcom, dhcp, dns* are all examples of efforts that have the power to change the basic services that are used by other layers - and have a potentially adverse effect on the ability of the Internet to support existing or new applications. at least Poisson doesn't have the ability to break IP. again, I'm fine with shutting down poisson but I think we need to find better ways to address some of the problems that poisson tried to address - and simply moving the discussion to the IETF list is not IMHO sufficient. Keith
Re: Proposal for a revised procedure-making process for the IETF
Keith Moore wrote: 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. And that is just the problem, with Poisson being populated by a small subset of active IETF participants and a number of people whose main interest is in fact process issues. yes, but we have that problem with *every* working group whose decisions affects those whose core interest is not that group. nat, midcom, dhcp, dns* are all examples of efforts that have the power to change the basic services that are used by other layers - and have a potentially adverse effect on the ability of the Internet to support existing or new applications. Agreed, but in theory at least the ADs, the IESG as a whole, and the IAB are supposed to look out for that sort of thing (whether we succeed is another question). That doesn't work for the process because those are exactly the same people as have a vested interest in the process. That's why I think that major process issues really deserve exposure on the IETF list, *including* exposure to people who don't want to know. Of course details can be debated in a WG, whether it's Poisson or an ad hoc group. at least Poisson doesn't have the ability to break IP. wanna bet? :-) again, I'm fine with shutting down poisson but I think we need to find better ways to address some of the problems that poisson tried to address - and simply moving the discussion to the IETF list is not IMHO sufficient. No, and that wasn't Harald's proposal - as I read it, it was to take the discussion to an ad hoc WG after exposing the issue on the main list. Brian
Re: Proposal for a revised procedure-making process for the IETF
Brian E Carpenter wrote: [...] as I read it, it was to take the discussion to an ad hoc WG after exposing the issue on the main list. How is that different from exposing an issue on the 'main list' and then telling people to subscribe-to/jump-to poisson for continued discussion? What's to stop these ad hoc WGs from ending being populated only by people interested in process discussions anyway? Seems like we'll be back to the purported problem with poisson, but with more mailing list creation/removal overhead. cheers, gja
Re: Proposal for a revised procedure-making process for the IETF
On Sun, 14 Oct 2001, Robert Elz wrote: From:James M Galvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Robert, it has never worked this way while I've been Chair. 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. From where exactly do you draw this conclusion. I have just reviewed rfc2418 (bcp25), and I can find nothing that says that. It certainly isn't in 2026. The IESG needs to agree to the charter, that's clear, and the AD needs to agree to any milestone updates, etc - but for work that falls within the charter, the WG decides just what it wants to do. If you, and other WG chairs, are running to the ADs every time someone raises new topic, then no wonder the IESG are way over worked - it should be for the WG chair to decide whether something is within the charter or not - if it is, then fine, it gets discussed. That is certainly one interpretation of what I said. Let me provide a less cynical interpretation and try to be more clear about what I meant. The poised mailing list has always served a dual function: it is the mailing list for the POISSON working group and an open forum for discussing process issues. The POISSON working group has in its charter to address process issues. My interpretation of that charter (which I'll boldly proclaim is a shared interpretation by the General AD and my co-Chair) is that when an issue is discussed that clearly falls within the purview of POISSON we still need approval to promote that issue to a work item of the working group. We have worked together with the IESG to decide if the issue is to be addressed. You see, it is not within the purview of POISSON to decide by itself, without approval from the IESG, that any process related document is fair game to be opened, reviewed, and revised whenever POISSON decides it should be done. I can not imagine where you got any expectation at all that that was how things worked. I can not think of a single analog of such a procedure in any organization anywhere. That is not to say that organizations to not have a way to revise their processes, but there are checks and balances. The decision does not come from one side of the issue. In principle this is precisely the process of updating the charter to indicate the actual work item. Admittedly the co-chairs of POISSON have not been good at keeping the charter precisely up-to-date. (But then we are hardly exception as far as this is concerned. :-) Whenever it has been decided that the working group will not move forward with a particular issue this has always been noted on the mailing list. Nothing -- to the best of my recollection -- that has ever come up on the poised mailing list has ever been ignored. At no time was discussion ever cut off on a relevant issue. Taking on an issue as a work item has been cut-off. From my perspective and in my experience this is due process. Anything that falls in any of those categories is valid for discussion without anyone asking the IESG if it is to be allowed. Let's be clear about what's on the table. Discussion has *never* been stifled on relevant issues, until it has been decided that it is not a POISSON work item. A POISSON work item is different than a poised mailing list discussion. Please make a note of that. You are free to interpret the POISSON charter has being especially open-ended. I'm simply going to point out that it has not worked that way, as described above (speaking as co-Chair of POISSON). Jim -- James M. Galvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] co-Chair of POISSON but speaking for myself
Re: Proposal for a revised procedure-making process for the IETF
yes, but we have that problem with *every* working group whose decisions affects those whose core interest is not that group. nat, midcom, dhcp, dns* are all examples of efforts that have the power to change the basic services that are used by other layers - and have a potentially adverse effect on the ability of the Internet to support existing or new applications. Agreed, but in theory at least the ADs, the IESG as a whole, and the IAB are supposed to look out for that sort of thing (whether we succeed is another question). That doesn't work for the process because those are exactly the same people as have a vested interest in the process. good point. again, I'm fine with shutting down poisson but I think we need to find better ways to address some of the problems that poisson tried to address - and simply moving the discussion to the IETF list is not IMHO sufficient. No, and that wasn't Harald's proposal - as I read it, it was to take the discussion to an ad hoc WG after exposing the issue on the main list. well, I guess I have a couple of items I'd like to see on that WG's charter. Keith
Re: Proposal for a revised procedure-making process for the IETF
You see, it is not within the purview of POISSON to decide by itself, without approval from the IESG, that any process related document is fair game to be opened, reviewed, and revised whenever POISSON decides it should be done. perhaps not. but when the consensus of Poisson clearly indicated that some work needed to be done, the IESG was likely to feel considerable pressure to cooperate...if nothing else, to avoid the Kobe syndrome. Keith
Re: Proposal for a revised procedure-making process for the IETF
You see, it is not within the purview of POISSON to decide by itself, without approval from the IESG, that any process related document is fair game to be opened, reviewed, and revised whenever POISSON decides it should be done. this statement seems unnecessarily polarizing. the problem seems far less deciding that something needs a new consensus than finding a constructive way to develop them. much of this thread is a case in point. though some has been thought-provoking, even my highly-filtered view does not paint a picture of a mature decision process. would you want your baby in this bathwater? clearly not, as you seem to be among the crew trying to remove the bathroom. i would rather focus on how we can make the bathwater sufficiently cleaner that one might be less fearful of entrusting babies to it. i doubt my procmail approach scales well. and i think that scaling is the core of our problem. poisson-like things used to work when we were a fraction of our current size. given that email is one of the worst ways yet invented to build consensus and comfort, and that we still need an open consensus building process, what can we do to make it more scalable? randy
Re: Proposal for a revised procedure-making process for the IETF
Jim, I think POISED has become associated with ONGOING process issues. By definition, this working group is NEVER done, and so I fail to see why you would want to shut it down by creating a new list and group that will do very similar things. Ole Ole J. Jacobsen Editor and Publisher The Internet Protocol Journal Office of the CTO, Cisco Systems Tel: +1 408-527-8972 GSM: +1 415-370-4628 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj
Re: Proposal for a revised procedure-making process for the IETF
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. And that is just the problem, with Poisson being populated by a small subset of active IETF participants and a number of people whose main interest is in fact process issues. Despite the fact that process discussions might appear to be a distraction on the main IETF list, it is only there that we can get a feeling for what *everybody* thinks, rather than the rather special subset susbcribed to Poisson. Brian
Re: Proposal for a revised procedure-making process for the IETF
At 23:18 13/10/01, Robert Elz wrote: The IESG needs to agree to the charter, that's clear, and the AD needs to agree to any milestone updates, etc - but for work that falls within the charter, the WG decides just what it wants to do. Robert, I don't think that has ever been the way IETF works. Working Groups can't take up work outside their charter -- that is the entire point of having a charter. Ran [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal for a revised procedure-making process for the IETF
At 12:20 PM 10/14/2001, RJ Atkinson wrote: At 23:18 13/10/01, Robert Elz wrote: The IESG needs to agree to the charter, that's clear, and the AD needs to agree to any milestone updates, etc - but for work that falls within the charter, the WG decides just what it wants to do. I don't think that has ever been the way IETF works. Working Groups can't take up work outside their charter -- that is the entire point of having a charter. Ran, perhaps you missed the part of Robert's text that you quoted that said for work that falls within the charter? Robert's description certainly matches my own experience with the process of different working groups. d/ -- Dave Crocker mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Brandenburg InternetWorking http://www.brandenburg.com tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.273.6464
Re: Proposal for a revised procedure-making process for the IETF
Date:Fri, 12 Oct 2001 10:15:57 +0200 From:Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: 930592431.1002881757@[192.168.1.31] | Since 199x, the IETF's process issues have been handled by a couple of | working groups, POISED and POISSON. There was also poised'95 (just to pick nits, so I am allowed to send to the ietf-process list ... This is clearly relevant to the poisson WG, so sending to its list has to be relevant, and apparently the trash bag of ietf lists is important to this as well...) | POISED finished its initial work of defining the IETF process and was | closed down; And a day later (or the same day), poised'95 was created. When that finished ... | POISSON has tackled issues that have occured since that time. This should be some kind of hint (even the mailing list has remained basically stable throughout that time, it is still poised@...) If you were just proposing that it is time to kill poisson and create a new WG to take its place (because poisson has filled up too much I-D space, or is reaching some other limit), I wouldn't mind - meaningless change doesn't tend to do too much harm. But this isn't anything like that. | It is a widespread impression that the process currently is not working | terribly well. That may be, but this is no improvement. I know that there have been IESG members (past and present) who have disliked the poisson working group, as it has failed to rubber stamp proposals that (to the ADs) are obviously the right thing to do. I have disliked other WGs that have failed to rubber stamp my proposals which were (and still are...) obviously the right thing to do (to me). That doesn't mean I'm about to propose killing any such WG in retribution. Aside from that poisson has worked about as well as most other WGs that are around - and probably still would be, it it was allowed to actually go ahead and do some of the work it should be doing, rather than being stifled by we don't want to open that can of worms just yet all the time. | Debates in the WG tend to be wide-ranging, contentious, inconclusive and | not terribly well informed; many members of the community are staying away | from the WG because they do not relish the style of dialogue; it takes a | very long time to get consensus on even reasonably simple things. That cannot possibly be helped by starting the debates in a wider community, it can only be made worse. While exposing process issues to a wider group can't hurt the overall process, doing that in the name of making things run more smoothly is not rational. Not even close. What's more, the style of dialogue on poised has in general been reasonable, certainly better than on some other WG lists (if not as good as all of them). It has tended to be orders of magnitude better than the IETF list. If there's any list to stay away from in the IETF, it is the general IETF list. | These are all consistent with the characteristics of long-lived working | groups; in other areas, the Right Thing is most of the time to close the | working group and start over. | | This proposal suggests the same thing for POISSON. Maybe I missed something, where is the start over in this proposal? | The proposal is funded on the idea that process work is more like an area | than it is like a working group; except that, as you point out, it is too small to be an area. Then remember what areas are/were .. they were originally working groups, which outgrew themselves and split into parts - the parts then reforming as areas. That is, an area is what happens when a working group gets too big. Since, as you correctly point out, this working group has not become too big, it isn't tackling so many different issues, even thinking of it as an area is starting out down the wrong path. | Proposal components | --- | Procedural issues are a task of the General Area of the IETF. | The IETF Chair will act as AD for this area, and perform the usual | functions of process management for the process-making process. That's a restatement of the status quo, no problem there. | There will no longer be a special IETF process list; instead, issues of | interest to the community will be raised on the general IETF list. | This list will be used for pre-charter discussion of new items, as well as | general process issues. That's a terrible idea however, for lots of reasons. Aside from the IETF list being must better to avoid than any other list in the IETF, it is directly counter productive to actually getting anything done. | When items of a significant nature are to be considered, working groups | will be chartered as needed. Aside from Dave Crocker's point - the delay - this also has the hidden pre-condition and the IESG thinks the item is a good thing. If the IESG doesn't like the idea, no WG will happen (probably not even the first BOF on the formation
Re: Proposal for a revised procedure-making process for the IETF
On Fri, 12 Oct 2001, Dave Crocker wrote: At 10:19 AM 10/12/2001, James M Galvin wrote: ...I am expecting the IESG to streamline the process of new working groups for process issues. Obviously this requires a bit of change in how the IESG works but surely they realize this is necessary for the proposed process to work and it will get done. ...the question is why you have that expectation? we are talking about a management body that is vastly overworked, and that has a very, very stable long-term pattern of handling working group creation. And unless the processes inside the IESG have changed, it is even more consensus oriented than the rest of the IETF. That takes time. A lot of it. And it is very difficult to streamline such a process. On a practical level, you and I are in agreement. It occurred to me after reading Robert's note (which I'll respond to separately), is that on the one hand this proposal doesn't change the process that much. Consider that if an issue comes up it is discussed on a mailing list. It matters to me which mailing list (poised or ietf), but let's set that aside for a moment. If there is consensus there's an issue the topic still needs approval from the IESG. This proposal makes that step obvious, since it proposes we create a new working group. What you may not realize is that that step has always been true, it's just that the working group chairs interacted directly with the AD and IESG to establish the goal and agree to take on the work item. Then an appropriate announcement was made on the poised mailing list. The term streamlining was an attempt by me to characterize the current process and observe that all the overhead is already present. What this proposal does is to ensure our administrative process (Secretariat tracking goals, etc.) is included. It is my opinion this proposal does not change how things are actually working, it just makes it clear to everyone what is working and how. On the other hand I'll concede that when you formalize a process that has been mostly working without the formalization, there's always the risk that the process will falter, or otherwise not function as optimally as it did. We'll just have to wait and see. Hence the question reduces to: what existing list should be used? The IETF main list, or a different list? Given that we are considering a rather specific category of (ongoing) topics, then forcing them on to the IETF list is likely to have unfortunate side-effects on the IETF list. Your question above works in both directions, but then I'm sure you know that. The general ietf mailing list is always the default place to ask anything. If there's a more appropriate forum a person is redirected. The question I ask is why have two lists that I can take anything to? Now I'm sure you're going to try and tell me that only process questions go to poised and everything else goes to the ietf list. But I'll ask again why? If the discussions are specific and they come and go, why do we need a separate forum? If something is that important that it is going to survive and become a working group then it will get its own mailing list and move on. Otherwise why not let the community as a whole reject the idea on the ietf list? And for those unfortunate side-effects, we already have the ietf+censored mailing list. Jim -- -- James M. Galvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] co-Chair of POISSON but speaking for myself
Re: Proposal for a revised procedure-making process for the IETF
On Sat, 13 Oct 2001, Dave Crocker wrote: At 08:20 AM 10/13/2001, James M Galvin wrote: All topics have always needed IESG approval. It's just that with POISSON (at least while I've been Chair) the approval was just handled by the Chairs on behalf of the working group. Please review the recent process that took place when a working group chose to censor a posting and to direct all complaints to poisson. Although it was incorrect to direct the complaints to the working group, a spontaneous and productive dialogue took place about the censorship. There was no IESG involvement or approval of the topic. Dave, there is a difference between an open forum for open discussion of a topic and a topic being an issue to be addressed by a working group that will produce an outcome that will be documented in some formal way. It is topics of the latter type that require IESG approval. Surely we agree on that point? The topic you mention took place on poised. So what? And I ask that question in a formal context. I'm not saying it wasn't useful or productive to talk about it, but it was not (let me emphasize *not*) a working group action nor a task delegated to the working group for review and closure. The fact that discussion trailed off accomplished what? And I ask again in a formal context. It tells me that the group of people involved in the discussion and others on the mailing list agreed on the point. Everyone else in the IETF community missed it. I fail to see why that discussion could not have taken place on the ietf mailing list. Your assertion of a distinction between an IETF formality versus a general topic is both interesting and rational and even significant, but like all distinctions it is subjective and there's always a gray area. I'm choosing to eliminate consideration of any distinction. Your mileage may vary. Jim -- James M. Galvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] co-Chair of POISSON but speaking for myself
Re: Proposal for a revised procedure-making process for the IETF
Harald, I am not sure that your statement of the problem and your solution match. You give the core problem as: Debates in the WG tend to be wide-ranging, contentious, inconclusive and not terribly well informed; many members of the community are staying away from the WG because they do not relish the style of dialogue; it takes a very long time to get consensus on even reasonably simple things. As you note, these symptoms match those of working groups that have lived to long. Many of them also match meta discussions or process discussions in general (wide-ranging, inconclusive, not terribly well informed, odious to those who wish to move from meta discussion back to real work, difficult to get consensus). Changing the venue of those discussions seems unlikely to change their character. Certainly starting those discussions with the mailing list most subject to topic wander and contention seems likely to have a contrary effect; even if they are hustled onto a new mailing list quickly the damage seems likely to have been done. I also wonder whether the parallel between process work and the work of an area (as opposed to the work of a working group) is really that close. Fundamentally, engineering work and process work aren't very similar. Picking one engineering paradigm over another may improve things marginally, but it may be better to go outside that set of paradigms. One interesting possibility to consider would be modifying the nomcom paradigm for this purpose. Create a proccom that lives for, say, two years, half of its members rotating off each year; give it an IAB liason and an IESG liason. Bound the numbers to something that gives a reasonable representation but can come to consensus. Unlike the nomcom, make all its discussions on open mailing lists, and limit its actions to one of three things: create/revise a document on process; recommend to the General Area director that a new working group be formed to create or revise a process document; solicit input via the ietf-announce list on an issue, comment to occur on its list. This avoids some of the who watches the watchers issues inherent in the area proposal, builds on an existing social process that seems to work, and might avoid the working group rot. In any case, I agree that a decision on this by October 19th seems premature and that further discussion would benefit the community more than delay would harm it. best regards, Ted Hardie
Re: Proposal for a revised procedure-making process for the IETF
I'm still confused about the problem that will be solved by shutting down POISSON. cheers, gja James M Galvin wrote: [..] As far as what will exist while POISSON is gone and before another group comes along, I don't see much change myself. The public sounding board of the poised list is being explicitly replaced by the ietf list so where's the loss? Grenville Armitagehttp://members.home.net/garmitage/
Re: Proposal for a revised procedure-making process for the IETF
Date:Sat, 13 Oct 2001 11:20:08 -0400 (EDT) From:James M Galvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Robert, it has never worked this way while I've been Chair. 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. From where exactly do you draw this conclusion. I have just reviewed rfc2418 (bcp25), and I can find nothing that says that. It certainly isn't in 2026. The IESG needs to agree to the charter, that's clear, and the AD needs to agree to any milestone updates, etc - but for work that falls within the charter, the WG decides just what it wants to do. If you, and other WG chairs, are running to the ADs every time someone raises new topic, then no wonder the IESG are way over worked - it should be for the WG chair to decide whether something is within the charter or not - if it is, then fine, it gets discussed. If not, the WG may decide to disagree with the chair - and if required, ask the AD to replace the chair (as can happen any time the WG doesn't like what the chair is doing). If it is agreed by the WG that the issue is currently outside its charter, then the WG can rewrite its charter, and submit that to he IESG for approval. That's where the IESG should get involved. | It's just that with POISSON (at least while I've been Chair) the approval | was just handled by the Chairs on behalf of the working group. The poisson charter doesn't seem to have been revised in a long time, so it doesn't seem to me that anything needed to have received IESG/AD approval. (Aside: revising the charter might be a reasonable thing to do - my impression has been that that's been deliberately avoided, precisely because of what I mentioned in my last message - a desire to have the WG not start on anything new). Of course, it is just fine, and completely proper, for the WG chair to keep the AD informed as to what is happening in the WG (though the AD is likely to be on the mailing list anyway...). But that's a different issue. So, what really constrains what the WG can do is what the charter says it can do, and for poisson, that includes (as well as stuff that has been done, but as the charter hasn't been revised, old stuff is still there) ... - Discuss an update of the Nominations Committee document RFC-2282, if and when the current NomCom has suggestions for changes. Furthermore, the POISSON WG will review documents that are related to the IETF standards process (but that will not be produced by the POISSON WG itself) when available. Such documents may include: [list omitted] Last but not least, Poisson will serve as a generic platform where the IAB and IESG can discuss policy questions if there is the need for consensus polling. Anything that falls in any of those categories is valid for discussion without anyone asking the IESG if it is to be allowed. Eg: the ietf list charter, and the code of conduct docs pretty clearly fit under the 2nd of those - if you asked for IESG approval before discussing them, then there was no need. Nor should there be, we need a way for people to propose changes to the process in a way that they can be discussed, and if the community agrees, proceeded with, without discussion being able to be stifled by the IESG (or anyone else). That's important to us remaining an open body. | When there's a working group task it will have its own list. If that's because a new WG has been formed, that's fine. And if we wanted to form a new WG to consider (for example) exactly (only) a revised 2026, then that would be (or could be) exactly what should happen. But for one WG, there has to be ONE mailing list that is the WG list. Obviously there can be other lists established from time to time to move out discussions, but there has to be one place which is where the whole WG make their collective decisions. Ie: if another list were to be created, and reach some kind of consensus as to a doc to publish (or something) that can't be considered as a WG position until it has been verified on the one WG mail list. That's the one that section 2.2 of 2418 says needs to exist. a mailing list, the mailing list (etc) (no mention there anywhere of there being multiple mailing lists - and for very good reason). | Otherwise, why does it matter whether discussion of | topics come and go on the ietf list or the poised list? Because the ietf list is the best list in the IETF to be unsubscribed from. It very rarely has any content that anyone cares about, and very often has lots of content which is of concern to almost no-one. On the other hand the poised list targets exactly the people who care about IETF process issues, and doesn't bother all those who don't care very much, and mostly contains only discussions relevant to IETF process issues - it isn't a painful list to remain subscribed to at all. kre ps: you will
Re: Proposal for a revised procedure-making process for the IETF
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. 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. I think it is the discussion itself that matters not its source. In my experience with POISSON the transition of a topic from discussion to a working group task occurs as a result of one of two things. Either someone (usually one of the co-Chairs) steps up to the AD and asks for approval for the task or the IESG/AD hands over a task for the working group. Frankly I don't see that changing whether or not there is a long standing working group or a long standing mailing list. 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. From my perspective the IESG has always controlled POISSON, although I concede I never really thought about the possibility that the IESG imagined this huge 20 foot clue-by-four behind my back whenever I asked about taking on a task. I'm not convinced there's an issue here but your mileage may vary. 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? 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'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. Jim -- James M. Galvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] co-Chair of POISSON but speaking for myself
Re: Proposal for a revised procedure-making process for the IETF
On Sat, 13 Oct 2001, Keith Moore wrote: 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. POISSON is a working group and the proposal is to shut it down, just as POISED and POISED95 existed and were shutdown after a time. It will be replaced with another (probably more than one) working group as needed. I don't share your concern. Working groups coming and going is how things work. I don't understand why shutting down this group is a dismantling and creating a new one is going to be a problem. Perhaps you're concerned about whether or not a new group will ever come into existence? I suppose that's a risk but I'm not inclined to take any action with respect to that particular risk unless it's problem. As far as what will exist while POISSON is gone and before another group comes along, I don't see much change myself. The public sounding board of the poised list is being explicitly replaced by the ietf list so where's the loss? Discussions won't take place in the venue of a working group, per se, but I still do not understand why this is an issue. It doesn't change the process as far as how POISSON worked from my point of view, speaking as co-Chair of POISSON. 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. Perhaps we really do need a better means of resolving such problems, but what is happening here is status quo as far as I can tell. We're using what is available to us: shut down this working group and creating another, while keeping a public sounding board. 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. This proposal neither fixes nor worsens this issue. There's still an open forum for discussing issues and there is still a means of bringing such issues to the IESG to create a working group. Where's the issue? 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, ... 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. And you're expecting it to control discussion on the ietf list? And what plug is pulled? A working group is shutting down and one will come into existence to identify issues to be addressed. We will then create one or more new working groups to address those issues. Bring your problem list to that group. In the meantime the proposal is careful to make sure the public sounding board function of POISSON remains intact by moving it to the ietf list. How does this problem change the way things are now? 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. Bring this issue forward to be discussed at the next working group. I do not understand why it is at all relevant to the shutting down of POISSON. 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. How is this different than suggesting they are satisfactorily addressed by bringing them to the poised list? If it isn't then I don't see how it is relevant to shutting down POISSON. It might be an issue that deserves attention but it's not worthy of continuing the life of POISSON. Jim -- James M. Galvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] co-Chair of POISSON but speaking for myself
Re: Proposal for a revised procedure-making process for the IETF
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. 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. I freely acknowledge that there are good reasons to close down any working group that has existed for as long as poisson. and yet I think doing so creates a vacuum which cannot be filled entirely by the IETF list and narrowly focused WGs. 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. the first problem is to handle process issues that need quick resolution but which cannot wait until a newly formed WG has decided what to do. the second problem is to address deficiencies in our appeals procedure, which takes far too long to resolve issues, places a huge burden on an already overworked IESG, and often places IESG in the awkward position of having to pass judgement on the past activities of one of its members. If we had better mechanisms for these in place I think it would fill some of the needs that were partially met in the past by the poised list, and could easily serve those needs better than the poised list was able to do. both of these mechanisms need to have clear and publically visible ways of raising the issue, and inviting public comment where appropriate. Keith
Re: Proposal for a revised procedure-making process for the IETF
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
Proposal for a revised procedure-making process for the IETF
A proposal for managing the process of determining the IETF process --- History and status -- Since 199x, the IETF's process issues have been handled by a couple of working groups, POISED and POISSON. POISED finished its initial work of defining the IETF process and was closed down; POISSON has tackled issues that have occured since that time. It is a widespread impression that the process currently is not working terribly well. Debates in the WG tend to be wide-ranging, contentious, inconclusive and not terribly well informed; many members of the community are staying away from the WG because they do not relish the style of dialogue; it takes a very long time to get consensus on even reasonably simple things. These are all consistent with the characteristics of long-lived working groups; in other areas, the Right Thing is most of the time to close the working group and start over. This proposal suggests the same thing for POISSON. A new way of attacking the problem -- There are 2 overriding concerns when deciding how to decide policy for the IETF: - The process must be open. Anything else would compromise the essential nature of the IETF. - The process must achieve quality results. Anything else endangers the function and continued existence of the IETF. The proposal below aims to achieve those two things. The proposal is funded on the idea that process work is more like an area than it is like a working group; there are problems that pop up from time to time, there is a need for a constant ability to address issues, there are large and small pieces of work that need to be done. However, the idea of a process area has been tried (and has failed) in the past; for one thing, there simply isn't enough work around to make it necessary to have a whole area for it. Proposal components --- Procedural issues are a task of the General Area of the IETF. The IETF Chair will act as AD for this area, and perform the usual functions of process management for the process-making process. There will no longer be a special IETF process list; instead, issues of interest to the community will be raised on the general IETF list. This list will be used for pre-charter discussion of new items, as well as general process issues. When items of a significant nature are to be considered, working groups will be chartered as needed. Each group will have a scope limited to one or a few documents, or portions of documents, will work out or recycle those documents only, and will then shut down. WG documents will generally be Last Called in the usual fashion and issued as BCPs. Non-WG documents will be discussed as needed, on the IETF list or elsewhere, and will get a 4-week Last Call. At the pleasure of the IETF Chair, there may exist a directorate to help in generating coherent plans for the area. Proposal discussion --- The existence of formalized, short-term working groups may help with the problem of WG rot that has characterized the POISSON effort. The increased focus may also help with the problem that POISSON has had with meeting at IETFs: when it is scheduled opposite other meetings, there will always be participants who have no possibility of attending; in particular, most of the IESG will be busy in other meetings. More focused WGs will not need so much attention. Not having a special process list is one of the more uncertain aspects of this proposal. The advantages of using the general IETF list are: - A great number of relevant people are already present on this list - It is better linked into the community than a process-only list is likely to be The disadvantage is that all participants will have to read process-related discussions whether they are interested or not. This suggests that the threshold for creating special lists for specific issues should be rather low, even for documents that do not require the full apparatus of spinning up a working group. There is a very real danger that documents that are too small to require a working group will get inadequate review. This can be ameliorated by: - discussing the documents on the IETF list - using 4-week Last Calls, with pointers to appropriate mailing lists - the ADs requesting independent review of documents Comments on this proposal are sought; the general IETF list is the list that this proposal advocates for such comments, but the attempted process list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) may be more appropriate for detailed (nitpick-style) discussions. The General AD will monitor all 3 relevant lists, and make a decision on the proposal no earlier than October 19. [END]
Re: Proposal for a revised procedure-making process for the IETF
Harald, Without touching on the question of working group rot, I'll note that the difficulty with your proposal is that process issues tend to arise individually and periodically, and often need a timely resolution. Working group chartering, and even mailing list setup, has quite a bit of overhead. It is unlikely that the effort associated with them will be viable for the periodic (multiple times per year) requirements of process discussion. Note, for example, some recent issues about a particular working group's process that warranted -- and received -- immediate discussion and clarification. My own sense of the Poisson discussion was that it was reasonable in tone and had a constructive resolution. - - - - - Hence, let me suggest a revision to your proposal, intended to respond to the concern but lighten the administrative burden: Retain the list and the group. Permit open discussion, in order to provide a separate venue for raising issues. The group chair will assess rough consensus about the need to pursue a topic and will draft a task description to serve as a mini-charter statement of work. It will be sent to ietf-announce, to permit non-poisson mailing list members to know of the new activity. The chair will then manage the task process in the usual way. d/ -- Dave Crocker mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Brandenburg InternetWorking http://www.brandenburg.com tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.273.6464
Re: Proposal for a revised procedure-making process for the IETF
I'd second Dave's suggestion that we leave the POISSON list as is. Aside from the overhead of multiple lists, confusion might reign about which list is discussing which topic, with people ending up posting to multiple lists, etc. The increased focus may also help with the problem that POISSON has had with meeting at IETFs: when it is scheduled opposite other meetings, there will always be participants who have no possibility of attending; in particular, most of the IESG will be busy in other meetings. More focused WGs will not need so much attention. True, fewer people would attend the more focused groups, but wouldn't they still face scheduling conflicts with other WGs? (Feel free to tell me if I've missed the point ...)
Re: Proposal for a revised procedure-making process for the IETF
though i appreciate the intent. i would appreciate a separate mailing list for process issues as opposed to technical stuff. it is my job to work on the technical stuff at some depth. the process discussions often get a bit too detailed g. randy
Re: Proposal for a revised procedure-making process for the IETF
[ trimming the cc list to just [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] On Fri, 12 Oct 2001, Susan Harris wrote: I'd second Dave's suggestion that we leave the POISSON list as is. Aside from the overhead of multiple lists, confusion might reign about which list is discussing which topic, with people ending up posting to multiple lists, etc. If there are multiple lists than there must be multiple working groups (or BOFs with the goal of becoming a working group). This would be similar to the ordinary way in which any area in the IETF operates. Note that the model is to operate sort of like an area without actually being one. Thus, there should be no additional confusion than that which IETF participants already experience. :-) This is why all discussions start in one place, the IETF general list. And it needs to be that list and not a separate process list in order to be exposed to the greatest cross section of the community (if not the entire community). As with any IETF issue, if the discussion warrants detailed attention (as a BOF with a tentative goal of becoming a working group), then a separate list is created and discussion moves there. Harald has already suggested that perhaps the threshold for what needs to move will be lower for process issues than it ordinarily is for issues on the IETF list. That is something we will have to determine as the need arises. Jim Co-Chair of POISSON but speaking for myself -- -- James M. Galvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] The increased focus may also help with the problem that POISSON has had with meeting at IETFs: when it is scheduled opposite other meetings, there will always be participants who have no possibility of attending; in particular, most of the IESG will be busy in other meetings. More focused WGs will not need so much attention. True, fewer people would attend the more focused groups, but wouldn't they still face scheduling conflicts with other WGs? (Feel free to tell me if I've missed the point ...) To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription manager: http://lists.elistx.com/ob/adm.pl
Re: Proposal for a revised procedure-making process for the IETF
The IETF list should be reserved for proper technical discussions, such as the format of RFCs and Internet Drafts, NATs are good/bad/ugly, add me/remove me messages, and conference location debates.
Re: Proposal for a revised procedure-making process for the IETF
Jim, et al, At 10:19 AM 10/12/2001, James M Galvin wrote: Dave, although it may be true that our current process for creating working groups can be cumbersome, I am expecting the IESG to streamline the process of new working groups for process issues. Obviously this requires a bit of change in how the IESG works but surely they realize this is necessary for the proposed process to work and it will get done. giving full credit to everyone's clear and honest good intentions and good actions -- especially the kind folks on the IESG -- the question is why you have that expectation? we are talking about a management body that is vastly overworked, and that has a very, very stable long-term pattern of handling working group creation. And unless the processes inside the IESG have changed, it is even more consensus oriented than the rest of the IETF. That takes time. A lot of it. And it is very difficult to streamline such a process. At any rate, the topics that poisson has had to cover have been rather narrow and isolated. now, it well might be that an effort to query the community about process topics that could be improved would produce a substantial list of topics that are legitimately in need of work. THAT would warrant a working group. (it would also be at least a 2-year working group, i suspect.) however the pattern, to date, has been topics that have come up far more piecemeal and have needed more timely response than is possible if each must wait for a critical mass of topics, before forming a working group. On the other hand, creating a new working group and a new list has one feature that is an explicit goal. IETF working groups always have an abundance of fringe participants and for long-lived groups this is especially problematic: you get on a list and you never get off and you find yourself interested or otherwise involved in topics you otherwise would not have bothered with. Ahhh. Social engineering. Entirely rationale. However we stink at it and need to avoid opportunities like this to pretend that we have a clue about how to do it. Finally your last sentence seems to suggest that open discussion is some how coupled with a long-lived working group and its mailing list. Even if that were true, the proposal is to use the general IETF list, which is a mailing list that is both open and long-lived. It's not a working group but I don't see how that matters. My wording was obviously inadequate. You are not the only one to think that I was referring to openness. I wasn't. I was referring to the easy, spontaneous collaboration that is like walking down the hall to consult a colleaque. I am now calling this the water cooler effect. Hence the question reduces to: what existing list should be used? The IETF main list, or a different list? Given that we are considering a rather specific category of (ongoing) topics, then forcing them on to the IETF list is likely to have unfortunate side-effects on the IETF list. (What happens when you remove the water cooler is not a good thing.) d/ -- Dave Crocker mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Brandenburg InternetWorking http://www.brandenburg.com tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.273.6464
RE: Proposal for a revised procedure-making process for the IETF
Waitaminute, I thought NAT rants had been relegated to the authority of one Dante Alighieri for proper assignment to a low, lonely circle of hell -- Ian -Original Message- From: Eliot Lear [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 12, 2001 3:47 PM To: Randy Bush Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Proposal for a revised procedure-making process for the IETF The IETF list should be reserved for proper technical discussions, such as the format of RFCs and Internet Drafts, NATs are good/bad/ugly, add me/remove me messages, and conference location debates.
