On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 7:34 PM Dave Crocker <dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:I'm still ignorant, apparently, to how an organization-wide change has been imposed by a constraint in a charter in a single working group in a particular corner of the IETF.Again, the charter imposes a barrier that is without precedent in the IETF, given it's blanket, a priori assertion for all work done through this wg. It is striking that there seems to be so little awareness of the difference between this and any kind of established IETF practice, or how nuanced downsides of organizational change typically are.
The charter imposed constraints that are, I believe, without precedence. As I've noted a couple of times:
"Prior to accepting any Standards Track document for development, there must
be a commitment to implement the resulting proposed standard" is a massively higher bar than the IETF has ever asserted.
Setting a new, severe constraint is setting a new, severe IETF
policy. That's why I said organization-wide. And I'll note that
there was nothing in the discussion leading up to the charter and
nothing in the charter, and no serious discussion since that
explains and justifies this dramatic raising of the bar, not any
basis for claiming rough consensus in support of it.
It is interesting that responses to this concern have been to
cite the very different generic requirement for implementation
prior to Proposed. No requirement for anyone to step up before
the spec work starts. For that matter, no one required to make any
public statement even later. They show up an say they are building
or have build an implementation; or they don't. So the responses
have not been relevant to the current constraint. And when this
difference between established practice and the new constraint has
been pointed out, there has been no meaningful response.
It is also interesting that there were exceptions taken to my
commenting that 'organizations' don't make commitments like this,
before any work is done (and usually not even later), where
comments have said the charter constraint doesn't impose a
requirement on organizations. This is a theory vs. practice
failure. It carries the IETF cultural point about individual
participation far beyond its practical reality. Yes, there have
been individuals, acting on their own, who choose to do
implementations. But I believe the vast majority of such work --
as with the vast majority of IETF participation -- is done by
representatives or organizations, sponsored by those organizations
and doing implementations for those organizations.
Moreover, charters are supposed to set constraints, establish operating rules and requirements, etc.
When there has been an extended exchange and someone feels the need to reassert s first principle, in spite of the fact that the principle was not challenged directly, or by implication, or by intent, my experience is that serious discussion has ended, if it ever took place.
So here's another first principle: Charters are expected to set
reasonable constraints that are apt.
And I disagree that there's little awareness of the difference, but I'm not understanding why it's so urgent or destructive.
I don't understand the reference to 'urgent'. As for destructive, it is a constraint that requires organizations to do something they don't do. It is, therefore, a severe disincentive to bring work to the IETF.
To the extent that you believe there is awareness of the difference between this new constraint and established IETF policies and practices, I'll apologize for not having seen it. As noted, what I've seen has implied a failure to discern that difference. So perhaps you can point to such awareness being demonstrated?
That is, after 10 months, only if there have been a series of successful efforts will it be possible to make a valid statement about the wg and its charter.
Or, I suppose, there might be documentation of problems. But since basic concerns are being ignored now, what will cause them to have more useful effect later?
Given the length of this thread, why do you think they're being ignored? It seems to be getting plenty of discussion.
Lots of responses is not the same as serious engagement with the substance. This hasn't had that. I've note some examples, above.
d/
-- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net mast:@dcrocker@mastodon.social
