> 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. I dont see whats wrong with each wg chairs determine what is the consensus. (Note: I use the word "determine" not "decide"). In fact, that is part of the job description for a wg chair. > 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. Product release and market development activity are out-of-scope for IETF. If the working group considered them as a factor, then it is up to the *group* to decide. The chairs dont play a role here other then declaring what the rough consensus is, regardless what that decision is. I have a feeling you should be looking at some other industry consortium instead. -James Seng > 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 > > > >