--On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 15:32 +1000 Lloyd W <lloyd.wood@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 28 Apr 2021, at 15:14, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> >> wrote: >> >> AFAICT, little or nothing. I do think there is another >> sub-issue that has confused the conversation. If the WG, in >> calling the shots, feels a need to micromanage a document >> editor (whomever that might be) and, in particular, gets to >> the point of needing consensus calls on editorial --rather >> than substantive technical-- issues to move forward, then the >> WG has a problem. I don't think we can make rules about >> that, if only because sometimes the solution will be "new >> editor", sometimes "new chair(s)", and sometimes "time to >> shut down the WG as having lost sight of what it is supposed >> to be doing". Cases like that may ultimately be the reason >> we pay you ADs the big bucks. > > I think you've just described TERM, where the charter and > its document editor are already being micromanaged. Lloyd, <rant> It is probably (almost) a separate issue but as the more time goes by and the IETF evolves [1], the more I'm convinced that it was a mistake in the 1990s to conflate our procedures and mechanisms for handling and defining procedures for the IETF with those we use to deal with Internet protocol specifications. That includes the relationship between BCPs about the operation of the protocols and the Internet with ones about how the IETF does its work, assumptions about expertise in WGs and maybe even about how WGs are organized and run, and possibly whether the same Last Call and approval model are appropriate to both. And, of course, the introduction of the IETF Administration LLC into the works just heightens the distinctions. I remember when we created the idea of a "general area". It was not intended at the time to be an actual area that would run multiple WGs, make decisions about AD-sponsored documents, and compete with technical/engineering WGs in the other areas for resources. Instead, it was a quick solution (some would say "kludge") to quickly get around our sudden realization that the post-Kobe POISED reorganization had not made provisions for a WG without an AD. So now we have a full-fledged Area to add to the responsibilities of the IETF Chair (as if IETF Chairs don't already have enough to do) including a mechanism for generating new WGs. Better? Maybe. But I contend that trying to treat them as the same has periodically been the source of some awkward situations and confusion. But there has never seemed to be any energy to try to sort it out. I assume it will have to get even worse before there is. </rant> I am not personally convinced, but maybe the nature or TERM and the decision to run it as if it were a "normal" WG is a symptom of the problem. best, john [1] I'd like to say "matures" but that is sometimes not obvious.
