--On Monday, April 5, 2021 19:31 -0400 Michael StJohns <mstjohns@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 4/5/2021 7:11 PM, Michael StJohns wrote: >... >> Given the general language of RFC 2418, my best take is that >> _*it's inappropriate for the IETF to charter a working group >> on this topic*_. It's not a technical topic, and it does >> not fit the general WG model. >... > Joel H reminded me of Poised, Poisson > of the previous century and Newtrk of the previous decade. > I'm sure there are others. I know you remember and probably bear some scars, but, for those who don't, POISED was very special, occurring when there was very broad consensus that there was a problem that needed to be solved in order for anything else to move forward in the IETF ever again. It defined the contemporary IETF and its structure and, while I don't remember it being said explicitly, I think there was fairly broad agreement that it was ok if people, even fairly significant contributors, didn't like the result, went away, and didn't come back. Independent of any other issues, I don't see there being sufficient consensus over this issue that it is worth driving, not just participants but significant contributors, out of the IETF would be an understatement. More on that below. There was also POISED95, which, among things, sorted out and produced RFC 2026, 2027 (the foundation for the contemporary NOMCOM model), 2028 (which we have never gotten around to updating -- see the discussion at GENDISPATCH last month), and 2031 (which more or less defined the IETF-ISOC relationship until the LLC came along). Having co-chaired POISSON, while I would claim the effort was mostly successful, it was also painful: the charter said "This is therefore a slippery subject, hence the name POISSON, which is French for fish." and I claim that, like dead fish, some of the work took on a bad odor and taught us the importance of the previous sentence of the charter: "The tricky part of describing the IETF process, certainly in the fast changing world of the Internet, is that when you describe the process in too much detail, the IETF loses its flexibility, when you describe to little it becomes unmanageable." and, while, like its two predecessors, there was strong consensus about the importance of the work and the desire to get it done, I think, tuning aside, there was also fairly strong consensus to tune existing procedures when necessary in the future (the periodic revisions to the Nomcom and appointment model are good examples) but to avoid taking on broad topics, especially ones with the potential to seriously divide the IETF and leave it divided or with people leaving, if at all possible. I agree with Lucy about Problem Statement as well. Despite having community consensus that the problems it intended to address were important, I watched NEWTRK leave scars that have not healed. Others would probably disagree, but I suggest it demonstrated the willingness of the IESG to decide that its experience and perspective in IETF process matters were more valid and important than the consensus of the WG, so much so that there was no reason to try to ascertain IETF rough consensus before dismissing the WG's key results without an IETF Last Call. I have no reason to believe the current IESG would, or even might, do that but, to the extent to which the IESG has proposed this as a WG, if it is going to be chartered as a WG, it would be very desirable to design a different mechanism for managing Last Calls and evaluating community consensus than the same IESG. And that is probably just another argument for "not as an IETF WG". >... >> <minirant>Technical WGs at least have the possibility of >> achieving consensus based on the analysis of tradeoffs of >> hard facts and good analysis. A "WG" such as TERM may fail >> of achieving even WG consensus, let alone community >> consensus (especially given the current ongoing discussions) >> and there will be no fall back to fact analysis >> possible. I can't see any way an appeal could be managed >> in those circumstances and I strongly suggest we do not try >> to place this in the WG model.</minirant> >> >> Since the proposed charter for Term will effect more than >> just the standards process (e.g. it potentially effects all >> of the current and future RFC streams), it would appear this >> should be handled either as an IAB activity (either >> authored, or referred to a workshop), or deferred until the >> RFCED group completes its work and can have this assigned as >> a work item. I would go a bit further. Because responsibility for determining the appropriateness of vocabulary in the RFC Series has traditionally been the responsibility of the RFC [Series] Editor (going more or less back to the beginning of Jon Postel's administration and continuing through Heather's), launching this effort now would likely have the effect of adding an unneeded additional impediment to the RFCED group reaching consensus on its core tasks and/or setting us up for additional future work to harmonize the two. >> My first preference is to do this as an IAB Workshop report >> with no BCP tag and with as dispassionate an analysis and >> output language as possible. E.g. explanatory language vs >> directive. Agreed. There is no doubt in my mind that we have language and terminology problems, especially when those are considered broadly and cross culturally. I think it is reasonable and appropriate that we do as much as possible to educate the community, and especially would-be I-D or RFC authors, about the issues. That requires analysis, explanation, and guidance, not directions or rules (and especially not directions or rules on which we will not be able to agree and that will cause further divisions in the community because of the lack of agreement. I think it is also reasonable and appropriate for people who find what they think is inappropriate language in a draft in a WG or submitted for Last Call to raise those issues, both in the hope of getting the language fixed and to facilitate education of the authors. But, if there are any lessons from any of our recent efforts in WGs designed to specify important aspects of the standards process or from the intensity and tone of the recent discussions of terminology on the IETF list, those lessons are that there is no community consensus (even rough consensus) that this work should be done in a way that would (or might) establish specific directions for vocabulary or behavior and that, absent such consensus, the results are as likely to be destructive as helpful. best, john
