--On Friday, 22 September, 2006 16:33 -0400 Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>> "Scott" == Scott Bradner <sob@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > Scott> It's not hard to see why the newtrk chair (me) > decided that Scott> newtrk had no real future unless we > happened to come up with Scott> something that the IESG > liked (without the IESG members Scott> providing much help > figuring out what they might like) > > Scott, John, we can choose to be bitter and to look back at > past failures or we can choose to be constructive and look > forward. > > If you believe Brian made the wrong consensus call, then say > so and get others to say so. > > Otherwise, please get over newtrk and move on and find some > way of being constructive. I'm sure we could all tell all the > possible different sides of the newtrk story. Some would make >... Sam, While I appreciate your point of view, let me explain where I stand on this set of issues. First, I meant what I said in Montreal. I may continue, reluctantly, to respond to issues of fact or interpretation as to why we aren't moving forward on process issues, but I'm through making new proposals for a while or stimulating such proposals from others. I didn't initiate this particular discussion but simply responded after yet another thread was started about what happened in newtrk and what might be necessary to get things moving again. I don't see any point at all in recycling ideas that were proposed in newtrk as if they were new and expecting them to get approval outside the newtrk context and will probably continue to comment when such proposals come up. My Montreal recommendation was that, to the extent possible, we just drop process discussions for a year or so to let the community recover --from newtrk, from the IASA formation process, from the noise level in IPR, and from other things. I'm pragmatic about that: I think the mailing list changes and IETF Trust language were critical and require attention now, but I don't see work on less time-critical changes as being productive. I believed the suggestion was constructive when I made it and still do. I think there is lots of evidence that the community doesn't feel strongly enough about the need for major change to force such changes (e.g., in spite of IESG resistance) and I am concerned about change proposals that are discussed only among self-styled process experts because the rest of the community has tuned out. Consistent with that Montreal recommendation, my personal preference and advice would be that we just lose the several analyses and proposals for change (including Brian's two or three documents) for a while, e.g., that the position of the IETF Chair not be used at this particular time to stimulate community involvement with individual I-Ds that would otherwise probably vanish without comment. I see nothing significantly wrong with Brian asking for that review; I just don't see the broader IETF community as willing to do it in an effective way. I would see it is problematic if Brian claimed community consensus after getting a handful of comments from a homogeneous subset of the community, but I see no reason to believe he intends to do that. I also believe that the community is sufficiently burned out on process issues to call any apparent consensus on changes (or on not making changes) into question and suggest that anyone who wants to pursue those issues should cautiously watch the breadth of participation in the discussions. The combination leads me to the conclusion that Brian made exactly the right call about newtrk, but that the "solution" to newtrk's problems is neither a clone WG or a way to work around the WG model in the area. On the question of whether there was a reasonable prospect of newtrk making progress, the answer is clearly "no"... regardless of whether the reasons for that answer originate in the WG, in general community burnout on process issues, or elsewhere. I would question whether Brian exercised completely good judgment in unleashing a flurry of individual process commentary and drafts while considering whether to shut the WG down, but it is clear to me that, since he remains a member of the community, nothing prevents him from doing so if, as an individual, he considered it useful. Once the Nomcom is formally established and starts issuing calls for candidates, I do expect to write them a letter suggesting that, in their investigations, they poll the community on the importance of significant process changes. I will suggest that, if they conclude that the community thinks such changes are important, they consider willingness to shift approval of changes away from the IESG as a litmus test for IESG membership. I don't have any expectation that they will follow such advice and I am not even completely convinced that it would be a good idea, but I feel obligated to suggest it. Finally, for whatever it is worth, while I can't speak for Scott, I would not describe my reaction to the newtrk situation as "bitter". I am saddened that an effort on the part of the community to develop a set of proposals that fell within a WG charter went nowhere. I am more saddened that the observed patterns of behavior suggest that there is no point pursuing other significant changes until after we have changed the approval structure for such changes. My sadness is coupled with, and reinforces, a concern that the IETF is getting itself into a state in which significant evolution is impossible and that, without such evolution, the IETF may find itself rushing down the path to irrelevance or extinction. I don't blame the IESG or its membership for that state of affairs. A conservative approach of sticking to the job one knows how to do rather than going off on adventures into the unknown is arguably exactly the position the IESG should be taking. But that is precisely why I now believe that those in the community who want significant change --not mere fine-tuning-- should be looking at the approval process rather than at particular proposals that then would need IESG approval under the current rules. regards, john _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf