On 8/25/23 00:29, Rob Sayre wrote:
Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Even if all decisions are strictly ratified on the mailing list and
> subject to Last Call feedback, we all know that some working group
> participants look like "insiders" while others look like "outsiders" and
> the insiders have an advantage when trying to influence the working
> group's document.
Yes, and I don't think this is a bad thing. This is why we use
"consensus", rather than voting or unanimity.
After all, everyone's opinion cannot carry equal weight on every
document. I might comment on a Transport Area document, but I can
accept that they might say "thanks for playing", and not invite me to
a design team (this is the right thing).
You seem to think that this is a matter of expertise. It does not
bother me if the people with the most expertise have the most influence
on a document. On the other hand, it does bother me if some privileged
set of people (privileged for reasons other than expertise, say, because
they work for Certain Big Corporations) are able to exert
disproportionate influence on a document to the detriment of the
document itself.
> By the time a working group has mostly-agreed on the
> shape of the document, outsiders may be able to get minor or peripheral
> changes made, but they'll have a very hard time getting major concerns
> dealt with if those changes require substantial reworking of the
document.
Yes. Sometimes, one is a leader. Sometimes, one is a follower. I'm OK
with just spotting bugs and things most of the time.
So am I, if the only major problem with a document is occasional bugs.
But sometimes a document is deliberately crafted to favor one kind of
interest over another one.
If I felt a real conceptual conflict, I would write my own draft.
Which is fine as long as alternative drafts are given due consideration.
> And of course, doing things in private undermines IETF's ability to
> claim to be a consensus-building organization. I see no legitimate
> benefit to that whatsoever.
Well, I don't agree with this one. By the time there is an interim
working group meeting or a design team, any competent chair will have
made sure it is likely to succeed. That is pretty much the job.
One person's "competence" is another person's rigging. Part of the
chair's job is to ensure fairness, and for that reason it's essential
that chairs have competent oversight.
The process in RFC 2418, like most IETF process documents, is designed
to allow a lot of latitude.
Well IETF seems to be working to disable parts of the process that were
designed to ensure fairness. As someone who has participated in IETF
since 1990 or so, it's a huge concern to me.
Keith
