On 2023-07-15, at 09:12, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > Carsten, > > Thanks. > > Three observations, one partially inspired by your later note: > > (1) Whether we have "slipped yet" possibly depends on how one > defines "slipped", especially because it is very easy for people > to confuse "I don't like the results of that WG's work" with > "there must have been process problems because no open, diverse > technically, and fair could have come up with results like > that". Indeed, I’m outcome(*) oriented (Max Weber and all that). The way that rules influence outcomes is complex. Clearly, we don’t want rules that suppress work when that work would have been worthwhile (as accreting rule systems from perceived first principles typically does). We also don’t want work to proceed when it would be dangerous, and that is in the eye of the beholder (at least until the damage is actually done). > (2) Circumstances and WGs undoubtedly differ, but as a general > principle, I think we should worry that a WG that is holding > bi-weekly interims is, however unintentionally, being > non-inclusive, just because of the time zone issues and the high > time commitment for those specific times in multiple weeks. Here we are again — you are discussing this from perceived first principles instead of looking at what actually happens. Not a good basis for rule making. (Yes, you are modulating that thought later on, thank you.) I was asking for cases where negative outcomes have been the result because they may be more indicative for where we need to pay more attention (literally, and/or supporting this by changing the rules). (And, yes, I know of enough groups that try to do all their work in weekly/bi-weekly calls, and how much more powerful doing the work outside meetings can be. But there is some work where regular confirmation of small decisions can help progress tremendously.) > In general, I agree with you about WG chairs > and ADs getting things right, but that depends to some degree on > the chairs having different perspectives and the AD watching and > being engaged. At the other extreme, if an AD is overextended > and operating in "trust the WG chairs" mode and the WG chairs > have either delegated the issues to one of their number or are > acting as echo chambers for each other, the angle and friction > level of that slope can be fairly uncomfortable. I think we need to be very vigilant about collusion between ADs and chairs. Then we need to foster a trusting relationship between ADs and chairs. Not easy. Relevant technical knowledge and experience will always be distributed unevenly. A set of people who share a certain background may seem like a cabal from the outside. Or they may actually have formed one, for reasons that were benign or not. > (3) Tranquility Apologies for choosing this term. This was more about efficient outcome-oriented productivity than about silencing undesirables. > a WG and its > discussions can become tranquil and efficient because all > alternate perspectives and dissenting views have dropped out of > the discussions (or not been involved in the first place). We do WG charter work to actively repel alternative perspectives and dissenting views. It depends whether that is a good thing. One piece of personal experience I have is that people from a kilowatt crowd often have a hard time relating their experiences to constrained systems, and keeping a distance here can be efficient. Grüße, Carsten
