On 5/31/24 01:36, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
I'm quite astonished by the magnitude of the concern being addressed
here, especially only after the proposal passed through the typical
internal and external charter review periods. As Stephen points out,
this charter followed the usual process, and before that I sought
input from a number of people who typically participate in this area.
At least my concerns haven't been about whether the process was
followed. I have assumed that it was followed, that the IESG didn't
break any rules, and that the current WG charter is currently in effect
and the WG can proceed under that charter. (I have also assumed that
the IESG is free to amend that charter at any time if it so chooses, but
I haven't asked for any specific changes.)
My original concerns with the charter were mostly about whether the
implementation requirement was a good idea, i.e. whether it would do
more harm than good, and whether the requirement, as expressed, was
likely to actually help promote adoption of the WG's output as was
claimed it would. (So the repeated insistence of "we followed the
process!" seem to me to miss the point.)
IESG isn't required to respond to my concerns, of course. But I thought
it was reasonable for me to express them, especially since I wasn't the
only person who expressed concerns.
As for the idea of this being an experiment, Dave and I have both
expressed concerns about the viability of this experiment. And I
respectfully disagree with those who have suggested that any meaningful
results of such "experiment" are likely to be apparent in, say, a year's
time. I think it's more likely that even after several years, there
will be no widely shared sense at all of how useful that charter
provision was.
At any rate, yes, I'm happy to consider this a test or a process
experiment. If, after a few documents have been considered and either
processed or rejected, the consensus appears to be that this idea is a
failure, I would consider it my duty to spontaneously commence
rechartering to remove the offending constraint.
A suggestion was made shortly after the concern was raised that I'm
only just getting back to. (I'll give credit where credit was due if
this works.). Would this charter change alleviate the problem?
IMO, no.
More broadly, I am concerned that the responses to these concerns don't
seem to be addressing the stated concerns. I'm actually even more
concerned about the arguments being made (not just on one side), than I
am about the current wording of the charter. I have the sense that
various parties are talking past one another, and that at least some ADs
are more concerned about "crossing this WG off the list" than about
addressing the concerns that have been raised. And I had pretty much
given up on fixing those problems. But Murray asked about a specific
charter change, so I responded.
I continue to care about the viability of IETF's products, and am happy
to discuss that topic in private mail. But I doubt that further
discussion on this list will accomplish anything useful.
Keith
p.s. If you still want a suggestion for a change to the charter (i.e.
something simple not requiring deep thought or long discussion) I
suggest that you ask the WG itself to report on how well the
implementation requirement worked - specifically whether this aided or
impeded WG progress in any useful way, and/or whether the requirement
seems likely to improve adoption of the WG's products in the Real
World. Granted that it's hard to actually measure such success (or
failure), but asking the WG for its opinion (perhaps at regular
intervals) at least seems marginally better than having an "experiment"
with no results reported at all.
