-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Keith Moore wrote: > okay, this is getting way too long, and starting to get repetitive and > even personal, so I'm going to summarize: And I'll provide some final comments, since the summary isn't particularly unbiased. > 1. A review structure that works for conferences doesn't necessarily > work for IETF. And it doesn't necessarily not work either. It has not been generally applied, though. > Conferences and IETF have different goals. Correctness is a part of conferences too; consensus not as much, but ADs applying their personal feedback is not consensus. ... > Conferences and IETF also draw from different constituencies, > and IETFers may have more constraints on their time than those > who attend conferences and submit papers to conferences. In more than a few cases, they're the same groups. Where they are not, I beleive IETFers tend to have less since many in that group are paid to attend or participate. > 2. IESG's scaling problems are a direct result of low-quality output > from working groups, and we can't do much to address that problem > by changing how IESG works. IESG's scaling problems are also a result of taking on too much personal responsibility to provide individual feedback rather than to delegate. > 3. I don't think we can make IESG significantly larger, I don't think > we can dispense with final document review and keep document quality > up, and I don't think that additional reviewers can signficantly > relieve IESG of the need to do final review. I do think that > additional reviewers could be very valuable in giving WGs feedback from > early drafts, keeping them on the right track, and keeping IESG > informed about the status of the WGs. I also think that a document > that has enjoyed such review and feedback throughout its life cycle > will be much easier for IESG to review, and that (without any changes > to IESG's organization or process) it will be harder for IESG to reject > such documents without sound technical justification. All conjectures ;-) The issue isn't whether there's sound technical justification, but whether things get held up until that's addressed, even with ongoing review and feedback from other WGs. We either need to make the IESG larger (real or virtual by delegation) or make their work smaller (by encouraging feedback to be directional - as in 'take to WG X' - rather than technical review). > 4. Broad based (not just "cross-area") review is essential and IETF > doesn't have adequate structures to do this at present. WGs generally > need to have short lifetimes and to stay focused on deliverables, > while issues of conflict between concerns exist for years after a WG > has finished. I agree; a cross area review group would help, and certainly needs to be a structure separate from the WGs. > 5. These days, most IETFers are narrowly focused. What this means > is that we have to actively cultivate a broad view among people > entrusted to do broad review. IESG turns out to (accidentally) be a > mechanism for cultivating broad views, but it's not the only possible > mechanism for doing so. > > I suspect we would agree that the ADs alone aren't sufficient. Indeed. > But I > think the primary benefit of additional reviewers is in early review > rather than late review - I think we want the early review both to give > timely feedback and correction to WGs and to give the ADs confidence > that the WGs have stayed on track and done their homework, thus making > the late reviews easier. I agree, except that I don't see what the purpose of the late reviews is; IMO, an ADs time is better spent pointing out which WGs might overlap or have issue with a document than in providing specific technical criteria for correcting things (unless that WG and the doc editor disagree). > --- > and one specific response to something you wrote: > >>We don't believe in kings, and IMO, the IESG have too much king-like >>power in the current structure. > > Start giving IESG real rough consensus (rather than consensus by > exclusion and/or exhaustion) and real running code (or even > better, convincing analysis that the protocol will work well in the > wild), and they won't feel the need to rule by edict. That isn't always sufficient. Sometimes they rule to appease individuals, sometimes that individual is the AD. Either way, there's more going on than just good protocol design. > IESG appears to > rule by edict because WGs demand that IESG provide them with very > concrete feedback. Simply saying "you failed to provide security" or > "you failed to address the concerns of this other group that you'll > harm their interoperability" doesn't work - either the WG will balk or > they'll sit on the document for months not being willing to fix the > problems. So ADs try to come up with good technical solutions in order > to get closure. If the WG likes the solution all is well; if they > don't like the solution they complain about ADs who act like kings. > But mostly, WGs get what they deserve. ADs like nothing better than > to be presented with well-written, focused documents from groups that > have obviously done their background work and given it appropriate > consideration in their designs. > > Keith While that is true for some ADs, others act for political reasons, either based on the sway of individuals or a perceived need to 'play' in a space, despite whether the WG has had consensus to do so. I would prefer a bottom up organization that helped us create better, more coordinated protocols than the top-down one that we have now. Joe -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCb/TmE5f5cImnZrsRAgqaAJ9WGTyHpiCfRHiZTjvt5YNV9lBQLACg+VFL elSWye7NsvEOCfP3CoaMXYo= =ONTE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf