On 4/21/21 1:35 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
In other words, if a dispute can be handled by existing process,
trying to let that process work might be the best thing to do. If you
try the process and it doesn't work for whatever reason, maybe
there's a bigger problem there.
Sorry, I have no interest in "appealing" or chasing other process. The
point here isn't to "win".
I guess I thought the point was to make IETF less likely to discourage
participation. But in this case, I find myself asking, how could IETF
be different? There will always be some input that is distracting
enough to a WG (however that's defined) that the chairs see a need to
rule it out-of-scope. You seem to be saying that the chairs don't need
to be quite so strict. Well, perhaps, but it's always going to be a
judgment call on the chairs' part as to what will derail a WG, just as
it's a judgment call on the part of a person who believes they've been
unfairly ruled out-of-scope to decide whether to appeal it.
So basically it sounds like you're asking for a culture change rather
than a process change. I guess in my experience most IETF WG chairs
are willing to tolerate quite a bit of deviation from a group's charter,
at least for a while, and some participants would probably prefer a bit
less tolerance. This will necessarily vary from one WG to another, but
sometimes a tight focus is absolutely necessary.
Things I find myself wondering: Were you treated respectfully even
though the chairs didn't want to discuss your draft in the group? Did
anyone suggest alternative ways of building support for your proposal?
Bottom line: Anyone who wants to promote an idea within IETF has to find
some way of building consensus around that idea. And any time there's
inertia opposing that idea, building that consensus isn't likely to be
easy, even if it's a very good idea. It's still the job of the
proponents of that idea to try to build consensus; nobody else is going
to do it for them.
Keith
