Re: IETF Process Evolution

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



From: "Ted Hardie" <hardie@xxxxxxxxxxxx>


I would like to note that the use of this process was not agreed to by a consensus of
the IESG.

Brian sent early versions of this proposal to the IESG, and it received
considerable pushback, some of it from me.  I strongly encouraged
Brian to use a design team to draft a charter for a tightly focused working
group in the General Area instead.  I agree with Brian that general
discussion of IETF process change tends to diverge and to move slowly,
but I believe that working groups like NomCom show that we can succeed
with focused charters in establishing new procedures or revising existing
ones.  I believe the public chartering process of a focused working group
is a useful, necessary part of the openness of the IETF process, and that
the public discussion within that charter, once established, is critical
for process change of the scope envisioned.

Hi, Ted,

There are a lot of very helpful comments later in your note to Brian, which I snipped, but I wanted to respond to this paragraph.

While it seems plausible that we could use the same mechanism for protocol design and for process evolution, my understanding of the Problem working group's efforts and the subsequent newtrk/icar/proto/mpowr (and yes, there were others) efforts is that this approach simply does not work.

I used to believe that it could, and was honestly surprised when it didn't. I was wrong. It happens.

I wrote my observations on "why working groups don't work for process change" in an early draft of what became RFC 3933. I agreed to remove the observations in order to publish the draft (the question was, "do you want to publish the draft or argue about the observations?"), but I still think Sections 1, 2 and 3 of http://bgp.potaroo.net/ietf/all-ids/draft-klensin-process-july14-01.txt were accurate when they were written, and I do not know why these observations would have been invalidated in the past two years.

Whenever I refer to this version of the draft, I need to add this disclaimer: The reason this approach fails isn't anyone's fault - it's systemic. I continue to have the highest respect for the ADs who supported these efforts to improve things, and for the BOF chairs, WG chairs, and editors who tried to make improvements happen. But we've already been here.

At the very least, I expect "coming up with a tight charter" to derail any discussion of evolution until IETF 65. That's what happened in newtrk and icar, when IETF participants went from discussing proposals to discussing a charter.

Spencer

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]