On 29-Aug-20 04:12, Jared Mauch wrote: > > >> On Aug 28, 2020, at 12:03 PM, Timothy Mcsweeney <tim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Appeal agenda says 'record results of e-vote' = We don't actually vote. There is no voting. We might tally up objections but we definitely don't vote. > > I can assure you that the IAB holds votes. There's even a rule in the IAB charter (BCP39 = RFC2850): >> 3.5 Decision taking >> >> The IAB attempts to reach all decisions unanimously. If unanimity >> cannot be achieved, the chair may conduct informal polls to determine >> consensus. The IAB may make decisions and take action if at least >> seven full members concur and there are no more than two dissents. The IESG ballot process is not an up/down vote and occasionally it turns out to be non-terminating, so it's kind of half way between rough consensus and voting. The NomCom votes (BCP10 = RFC8713). The "no voting" mantra applies to WG consensus decisions (BCP24 = RFC2418). > I will say that the IETF (like many other things) requires like many things adapting to the environment you are in. There are many challenges along the way one faces when moving documents and work forward. > > I also think there’s people who are too into getting things published vs getting things working. It’s much easier to build something then work to make it a standard. > > I can think of many private things that could be standards that aren’t, eg: config files for applications. You see some of this playing out with SNMP models - and now yang. I’m sure it’ll be replaced with something else at some point too. > > An organization may need change, be it in process, culture or otherwise but style also matters over substance. Did the newcomer orientation and/or guide program not work for you? Jared, it is a fact that the IETF is not simple for a newcomer, and trying to achieve a quick result on what seems a small matter is essentially impossible for a newcomer. And some of what is written at https://www.ietf.org/about/participate/get-started/starting/ is aspirational (full disclosure: I drafted that text, many years ago). I think we're pretty consistent at this: "... if you write something that turns out to be wrong, you may get some quite frank replies" but not so good at this: "The IETF is normally very welcoming to newcomers, and tolerance is the rule." I found this down-thread: > An expert review or having to write a specification for me felt like sending a copy of your business plan to your competitors and asking for feedback. But in the open standards business, we're not competitors, we're collaborating to produce open standards that allow interoperability and fair competition. So yes, you have to show your working. Any IANA registry that requires expert review or more requires that. In contrast, the lower IANA policies (Private Use, Experimental Use, Hierarchical Allocation, First Come First Served) could presumably be used for proprietary solutions. Brian
