The problem James is that this is just not the case. What is the case is that each WG Chair gets to decide what concensus is for their WG and that is wrong. The problem with the operations is that the rules change form group to group and this has serious technical and financial implications for anyone trying to mount a standards effort as part of a product release or market development activity. Todd ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Seng" <jseng@pobox.org.sg> To: "todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>; "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <harald@alvestrand.no> Cc: <ietf@IETF.ORG> Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 9:20 AM Subject: Re: How many standards or protocols... > > then who makes that decision? You or the WG Chairs? The AD's??? > > The IETF as a community, depending on rough consensus. If the rough > consensus is that there will be multiple protocols, then then there will be. > If not, then not. > > Rough also means not everyone will agree with the decision. > > > But why is the question? If there are people actively working on the > effort > > and they want to continue, why is the management making any decisions as > to > > which protocols to push? > > There must be sufficient support for the effort and that must be rough > consensus. People activiely (solo or team) working is not enough. > > > The cost of persuits is not borne by the IETF though so what's the point? > > Why should the WG constrain any effort over another? This is a curiosity > of > > mine, that being why a WG should have squat to say at the management level > > about the content of its protocols, only whether they are completed and > > elevated to the next level or not. This is the core flaw in the IETF's > > process. The WG Chairs need an arms length from each of the protocol > efforts > > and to act as mentors for all the projects that have committed > participants. > > They are not the ones to decide what the WG will and will not focus on, > its > > membership is. > > In an ideal situation, the wg chairs would make decision based on what he > determined as a rough consensus of the working group. It is typical that a > handful of people will disagreed with the decision anyway but a loud voice > doesn't mean you'll get your way. > > But if there are sufficient people who disagreed with the decision of the > chairs, then the chairs have failed to determine the rough consensus. That > decision will be overturned. > > It does not matter what the contributions the working group chairs made, > what protocol they supports, what they thinks or what they eat last week *as > long* as the final decision represent a rough consensus of the group. > > If you think the wg chairs should be arms length and "mentoring role", you > should be looking elsewhere, not IETF. > > > As to the actual content and form of the protocols themselves, the > content > > and form is up to the contributors and those actively involved in the > > vetting process. So I would like to pose the question "why then should any > > WG Management have anything to say about which protocols are done in their > > groups?". > > Why not? Does been a wg chairs means he/she have to stop been a contributor? > > > Several have said to me that they need this ability to drive focus into > the > > group. The problem is that there is no formal definition as to what that > > focus is. > > Check your working group charter. > > > Also it needs to be stated that WG participants are not labor > > sources for the WG Chair to allocate, they are participants and are all > > equal before the IESG - or should be at least. > > I think that is why the wg chairs are paid big bucks by the IETF ;-) > > Big bucks as in a *BIG* zero with all-expenses-on-your-own deal. > > > > > > > I'd like to hear the IETF community's input on the topic. > > > > > > Harald > > > > Me too!. > > I think you should try to keep your disagree with the chairs within your own > working group. Also look into RFC2026 on the appealing process. > > -James Seng >