from my perspective, the management of the PPVPN WG appears not to have been optimal, to say the least. But I'm not willing to blame *all* the delay and confusion on the IESG.
even if a WG feels abused by the IESG, or its AD, that's no excuse for a WG not fighting back - in this case, by rapidly removing the IESG's apparent excuses for delay.
Dejection is an explanation, not an excuse.
Details:
--On torsdag, juli 03, 2003 12:52:48 -0400 Eric Rosen <erosen@cisco.com> wrote:
Harald> did any of the technologies change because of issues that were Harald> discovered in the discussions that were needed to clarify the Harald> requirements and framework?
No.
Harald> If no - why did it take any time at all to produce them?
Not sure what you mean, it always takes time to produce a document, even if the document is just a "rock fetch".
sorry; "rock fetch" is beyond my scope of American idiom. But version -01 of the framework document is dated July 19, 2001, and the first version submitted to the IESG is dated February 15, 2002. (I don't have a copy of -00). So the WG spent at least 7 months and 5 versions on it before submission. I took that as a hint that there might have been controversy in the working group about it.
Harald> there is little that the IESG can do when the WG knows what the Harald> comments are and chooses not to act upon them for 2-5 months.
This reminds me of Dilbert's pointy-haired boss, who says "your project is late, so I want you to give me hourly status reports."
just as well that I did not suggest that the IESG could yell more at the WG to update the documents, then....
When we have documents which aren't really necessary in the first place, which ultimately will not have any impact on the technology, but which need to be massaged and remassaged so as to get them past the IESG, I think it's quite clear where the responsibility for the delay is coming from.
If I accepted your evaluation as true, I'd agree with you.
Harald> And I don't understand why WG updates to fix problems take 2-3 Harald> months per cycle when the WG thinks that it's important to be Harald> finished with the docs.
Well, each objection from the IESG needs to be discussed and a response crafted.
which should take approximately 3 days of work, IMHO.
Comments that translate to "you are referencing an obsolete version of LDAP" should take approximately 2 minutes to fix.
Harald> is the IESG supposed to care about inconsistencies between the Harald> requirements (which are what the *WG* thinks should be satisfied) Harald> and the technologies that will be proposed for standardization?
Sure; but the reqs, framework, protocol specs, and applicability statements were all ready 18 months ago. They could have been submitted as a group. But we were told, "first you need to submit the first document, then a year or so later you can submit the second". This is a very peculiar way to encourage progress ;-) From the WG perspective, the specs have been ready for review forever, but the IESG has refused to look at them because of bogus process issues. And then they turn around and accuse the WG of making slow progress!
I did not see that instruction.
On the surface, your suggestion seems a sensible one; if the WG had officially declared consensus on all the documents at that time, I do not understand why you couldn't do it that way.
Did the WG declare consensus on all those documents 18 months ago (January 2002)? (And in the interest of being specific, I'd like you to say which documents you think of when you say that......)
Harald