Carsten, --On Saturday, July 15, 2023 09:53 +0200 Carsten Bormann <cabo@xxxxxxx> wrote: > 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). Not sure what you are referencing because I would argue that Weber's arguments about value commitments and subjectiveness take us toward the first principles you are arguing against. I'm outcome oriented too, just trying to be careful about the difference between outcomes that are good for the Internet and outcomes that selected ones of us might like or dislike enough to lose sight of that overall goal. Less abstractly, I believe that, if we are going to talk about IETF consensus, it should be meaningful consensus of the community, not something a cabal managed to push through (even as a side-effect of cabal-ness, rather than intentional acts intended to be non-inclusive or other views). And I don't believe that the "rough" part of "rough consensus" encourages beating up or wearing down opponents to the point that they drop out of the conversation. > 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). I agree. See below. >> (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.) The error I may have made (at least from my perspective on your point of view) was not being explicit about the rules I was looking for rather than trying to see how the community felt about a set of principles. It is not that I am firmly committed to those principles. Rather, I think that, if we are changing them (or have done so), we should do so candidly and explicitly rather than by selectively and intermittently declining to pay attention to the rules or by writing guidelines that accidentally encourage behavior that reasonable people might consider problematic. As an example, within the last week, a WG Interim meeting (not a regularly scheduled one such as your bi-weekly example) was announced to the community seven minutes (not hours or days, but minutes) before the scheduled start time. After making some inquires, I'm personally satisfied that it resulted from an honest mistake aggravated by some confusing materials that were not the fault of the relevant WG Chair. That is exactly why I have resisted calling out specific incidents and pointing fingers -- IMO, the WG Chair is probably more a victim in this case as the source of a problem. However, I think that such cases should be treated as exceptions, that the fuzzy language ought to be cleaned up to either avoid the cases themselves or to make the exception cases clear, and that, when exceptions are needed, they should come with explicit justification and explicit AD signoff (not just some language about the general desirability of consulting the AD). I'd make similar comments about bi-weekly interims and incremental or rolling agendas. They should not be the norm but, if the WG Chairs want to offer the community a clear explanation of why they are desirable/ needed and get explicit AD signoff on them, I'm not in a position to judge whether they are appropriate and the community, at least without more information, shouldn't either. On the other hand, for those who believe that appeals are the solution to all of these problems, that explicit justification requirement, if we had it, would probably create an appeal-able event and AD signoff definitely would. > 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). If there are people who have not followed a WG mailing list but want to understand its decisions better, seven minutes notice of a meeting causes a clear negative outcome in terms of inviting attendance. Whether that outcome is serious enough or not to have resulted in canceling, rather than holding, the meeting is a separate question. I'd prefer to have the reasons explained at the time and at least one responsible party (presumably the AD) other than the WG chair sign off on it. I don't think that is unreasonable. And, again, I'm not an easily-excluded newcomer or marginal IETF participant. I think that excluding such people is, a priori, a negative outcome. However, if a WG believes that its actual participants represent all of the needed expertise and perspectives, then the loss of whatever additional input those participants might contribute is not a negative outcome at all... it might even be, in the WG's judgment, an efficiency measure. And, again, all I am suggesting is that the IETF be confident that our avowed principles and our practices be consistent. If we want to be welcoming of newcomers and inclusive of different experiences and points of view (as we have been claiming) then we should not treat WG efficiency, especially the efficiency that comes (to borrow from Keith) from running a mostly closed club, as being more important. If we are happy with the clubs, and with each WG making up its own rules internally --both potentially very efficient-- then we should stop putting energy into outreach and inclusion efforts that end up looking like hypocrisy and/or little more than virtue-signaling. > (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.) But that is the point. If those groups are required to treat either approach as an exception from the norm, I'm ok with that as long as they are explicit about what they are doing and that explicit justification is available to the wider community (and signed off by the AD -- a decision I would hope would rarely be appealed but, should egregious cases arise, might be). At the same time, the rules rather clearly say that confirmation of decisions (small or large, regular or not) occur on mailing lists. I think that means enough context and opportunity for discussion on the mailing lists to make dissent plausible and likely to be considered fairly. At the other extreme, I do believe that a note to the mailing list that says, approximately, "if anyone disagreed with the decisions made at the list meeting, speak up", even if that comes with a list of the decisions (as part of the required minutes or otherwise) is outside the intent of that mailing list rule. Maybe the community disagrees by not. In particular, if the IETF has evolved in directions that make mailing lists irrelevant except for announcements and pro forma approval of decisions made elsewhere (based on discussions that also occurred elsewhere), then it is time to say that, not keep proclaiming one policy and doing something else. >> 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. Right. And again, I'm much more concerned about exception cases (by my definition) in situations where the overworked AD is not paying close enough attention to notice and WG leadership does not feel an obligation to inform them and get them to agree. Much easier than cases where deliberate collusion is part of the problem. Separately (and getting back to my response to Brian earlier today), if there is actual collusion, especially if it has negative consequences for the community or the Internet, then it is unproven whether appeals are sufficient to prevent further abuse (even if the appeals are "successful" in changing a particular decision) and we may need a much more workable mechanism than recalls. > 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. Indeed. And no set of rules are going to permit looking at a group from the outside and reliably telling the difference. The most we can do is to dial the responsibilities for transparency and accountability up a notch to put guardrails on that slippery slope, and that is what I believe is in order. >> (3) Tranquility > > Apologies for choosing this term. This was more about > efficient outcome-oriented productivity than about silencing > undesirables. I actually think I understood that. There are rare events that might arguably be exceptions, but I don't believe any IETF WG has ever made a list of "undesirables" and set out to silence them (some people might claim the IESG has occasionally done just that, but I hope that is, at worst, history and that we don't need to go there). However, borrowing from the above and my earlier note, if there is general agreement about a particular way of proceeding to an equally agreed result among WG chairs and the most active participants, then a dissenting view is almost inherently disruptive of efficiency and productivity that leads to that outcome. >> 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. Again, agreed. As someone who started worrying out loud three decades ago that IETF participants were designing for people and environments like their own -- typically with high-end and up-to-date equipment and connections -- I'm very much in favor of outreach and inclusion efforts and dislike the idea of our practices being contradictory to them. But it also means that charter provisions must, once agreed to, be taken seriously. My impression is that pointing out that a document going into IETF LC came out of a WG that ignored (or bypassed) charter provisions and suggesting that the document should be withdrawn until those provisions have been met will not have that result. I hope I'm wrong, but I think I see a case approaching that will allow testing of that question. best, john
