Martin,
I want to stress that I was not suggesting any malfeasance on
your part, just, at worst, a bit of carelessness (IMO,
completely understandable in the end of year rush). My main
concern, one that supplements Donald's and Pete's, is about
external appearances and encouraging those who intentions toward
the IETF are either suspicious or hostile. Even then,
principles like "once is a glitch, several times constitute a
pattern" probably apply. While it don't see it as urgent, this
may also point to a tooling problem: if you or other ADs are
using some sort of template to announce a new list, fixing that
template so it cannot easily be completed without supplying a
short description of the list and its purpose and optionally
supplying links to additional information would probably help
prevent mistakes when people get busy and in a hurry.
And, while spelling out acronyms in a list description (perhaps
another field for a template) certainly helps those of us who
are used to working within the IETF, I think it is safe to say
that most of the people in the world, even most of those with an
Internet technical background, who see the term "CONGRESS" are
not going to think of congestion control first. Something like
"ConCtrl" would be far more obvious and, while far less clever,
would avoid that element of my concerns. Again, probably not
now that you have moved forward and the term is already known
within the Transport Area, but perhaps worth keeping in mind for
the future.
john
--On Thursday, December 22, 2022 11:49 -0800 Martin Duke
<martin.h.duke@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Re: The working group description. Sorry, I screwed this up
> and totally forgot that the message would go out to
> ietf-announce. It was written for the many transport area
> people that have been following the discussion at
> tsv-area@xxxxxxxx and elsewhere. For the record, if approved,
> CONGestion RESponse and Signaling would revise the
> requirements to standardize congestion control and accept
> proposals for new standards-track congestion control work, but
> we're several steps from it becoming a WG.
>
> Re: AD/Co-AD. I'm trying to charter a WG because I think we
> need one. My role is to write a charter and gather consensus
> on it. I will not chair the WG or write any documents for it.
> I guess I "didn't try hard enough" to find someone to
> fine-tune the charter (I suppose people were reluctant to hold
> the pen for a document I had written), but I *did* try.
>
> At this point, this is just a non-WG mailing list, widely
> advertised on several Transport Area lists, so there's no
> "coverup". The charter doesn't have any formal status at all
> and the proposed WG does not yet have a datatracker presence;
> there will be further opportunities for the wider community to
> comment before a WG starts up.
>
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 10:55 AM John C Klensin
> <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> --On Thursday, December 22, 2022 12:08 -0600 Pete Resnick
>> <resnick=40episteme.net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> > Yes, Martin and Zahed blew this one. Guys, please don't make
>> > everyone in the IETF do a search.
>> >
>> > Having done the search:
>> >
>> > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-area/c_i1V8-fpPoW
>> > 5uy 47VbOQUN0aB8
>> > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/icWg-mbUgNfY5jq_
>> > AGW FiobUxeM/
>> >
>> > I would have been simple to put such URLs into the
>> > announcement.
>> >
>> > <soapbox>
>> > It would also be interesting to have separate discussions at
>> > some point about why it is a really bad idea for ADs to be
>> > primary proponents for new work and making their co-ADs be
>> > the responsible AD. The opportunities for conflicts of
>> > interest (or even just the appearance of CoIs) are huge. If
>> > an AD can't find someone else to be the primary proponent,
>> > they either haven't tried hard enough or it's a sign that
>> > the work does not have sufficient support to get going.
>> > </soapbox>
>>
>> +1 to Pete's soapbox. And let me add two of my own:
>>
>> <soapbox 2>
>> Many, perhaps, most, IETF participants are busy and need to
>> make decisions about how to prioritize things we do. Perhaps
>> the expectation that most of us will read a new mailing list
>> announcement is reasonable (I certainly try). But I expect to
>> find a summary paragraph there. Asking me (or others) to go
>> through links and read archived email messages, especially
>> ones that do not provide full of context, is an invitation to
>> having the announcement ignored. As Pete (more politely)
>> pointed out, asking/expecting people to do research before
>> finding those links is an even stronger invitation.
>>
>> And, when something mild or uncomfortable is involved -- with
>> this case of AD and co-AD involvement being an excellent
>> example -- it is far too easy for someone hostile to, or
>> suspicious of, the IETF to look at the combination of
>> disincentives to involvement by anyone but those actively
>> involved and that proponent/ leadership combination as
>> evidence that there is a cabal at work and that the
>> announcement is a cover-up. </soapbox>
>>
>> <rant> The interactions in which a representative of some
>> governmental entity or other SDO claims that the IETF cannot
>> be taken seriously and/or trusted with Internet protocols
>> have not disappeared. I got dragged into one earlier this
>> month. Every time we pick, as a WG or mailing list name,
>> some cute acronym that looks like a name that has an external
>> meaning and that has nothing obvious to do with the topic,
>> those inclined to make such claims have something else to
>> point to when they claim that we act like a bunch of immature
>> children whose processes and conclusion simply cannot be
>> trusted to represent any real consensus. I assume that
>> none of us particularly likes those fights. Although I may
>> be wrong about that, if I'm not, can we please stop providing
>> those who are inclined to attack us with extra
>> ammunition?</rant>
>>
>> john
>>
>> >
>> > pr
>>
>>
>> --
>> Congress mailing list
>> Congress@xxxxxxxx
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/congress
>>
