>>>>> "John" == John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> writes:
John> --On Sunday, 23 January, 2005 14:20 -0500 Michael StJohns
John> <mstjohns@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> > Who gets to kick this process into starting (e.g. who gets >
>>> to file a complaint)?
>>>
>>> Anyone, but only the IAB or IESG can demand a response.
>> I'm pretty sure that distinction won't work very well. See
>> above.
John> Yes, see above for the reasons for it. Note that the
John> "everything goes to the IAB or IESG first" is just a
John> degenerate case so, if the distinction doesn't work, the
John> BCP-level procedure doesn't need changing.
>>> Is that what I'd like in a perfect world? Nope. Do I think
>>> it will need tuning over time, probably in the direction of
>>> more IASA autonomy? Yes, but maybe not in ways that change
>>> the BCP. But I think that, given the divisions in the
>>> community over this issue, it is probably about the best that
>>> any of us will be able to get.
>> John - all I'm looking for are specific worked examples. E.g.
>> take various cases and work through how they should be
>> handled. Document each step. See if there are common processes
>> for each case. Determine the cost/benefit analysis from those
>> processes (e.g. does doing X actually improve the behavior of
>> the IAOC?) Derive the BCP from those processes. Right now the
>> BCP describes a process that hasn't even been validated on
>> paper or on a white board. We have neither rough consensus nor
>> running code.
John> I have been trying to make variations of that point in more
John> instances than this case, so we agree. But the community
John> doesn't seem to want to do that case analysis, or believes
John> that the IESG and IAB have done it for them and are taking
John> responsibility for it, and I don't see any way to make that
John> particular horse sip the water.
John, thanks for doing such an excellent job of explaining why someone
might believe that a loosely constrained review process could be a
reasonable thing. I realize that we disagree on this issue, but I
think your message is a useful tool in explaining the part of this
spectrum in which I find myself. I agree with the sorts of
explanations you are bringing up and they do serve to explain why I
believe that Margaret or Harald's text is reasonable.
I don't think particularly extensive case analysis has been done; if
people in the community are assuming that has been done and believe
that is important then they should speak up.
I'd like to present one other example that motivates why I think
having the review process is important. Say that the IASA has decided
to pursue a meeting in Beijing. No contract has been signed yet, but
that's getting close.
Many contributors indicate they will be unable to attend. The IAOc has been focusing on the business aspects of the meeting: how affordable is it, are the necessary facilities available.
The IESG and/or IAB formally asks for a review, arguing that whether
the right set of people will attend a particular meeting is an
important factor to consider in meeting site selection. Regardless of
whether the IAOC ends up deciding to reverse its decision, having this review be available is important.
--Sam
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf