Brian, Scott,
Many thanks for your responses, but here are some followup notes.
The problem I see is that WG chairs and ADs have a lot of latitude in
running WGs or areas. The possibility for abuse is tremendous; they get
to read consensus however they like and may advance or block a
particular document or work item based on personal preferences. The
inconsistent behavior goes either unquestioned or explained away as
being within the rules. The recourse is the appeals process which to
most people looks like a hammer and thus seldom used.
Additional notes inline:
On 5/23/2007 12:31 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2007-05-22 23:20, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
I am beginning to wonder about the IETF consensus processes and so
figured I will ask for advice on this list. First, a summary of some
of my observations over the past few months (I have real examples of
these, but we don't quite need to get into those):
1. Some people (WG chairs) seem to (want to) ask for consensus on
everything and that too many times:
1a. Ask for consensus on whether to adopt a document as a WG
item,
whether something
is/should be in the charter
who should be an editor
should the WG meet
Those are all separate questions. What is the harm in a chair wanting
to test consensus, even on matters where the chair has power of decision?
Nothing wrong with it, unless of course, the WG gets used to that mode
of operation and demands that everything be decided based on WG
consensus (which on spurious issues could mean that a vocal minority
gets to decide how things work).
1c. Ask again and again
That certainly happens when the reply to a question is silence, or just
a couple of messages, or irrelevant replies. A chair who really needs
to know whether a draft has WG support, for example, sometimes needs
to ask several times to hear from anyone except the authors. Again,
what is the harm?
2. Some people do it in multiple settings and in many different
combinations
2a. Ask on the mailing list
2b. Ask at a f2f meeting (sometimes, after having asked a
question on the mailing list)
2c. And sometimes ask again on the mailing list (sometimes,
after 2a even)
Yes. Results can be ambiguous and people can change their minds after
hearing additional arguments. As I understand it, the philosophy is to
get the best possible technical spec, not to meet an arbitrary deadline.
And that can mean looping over the same items.
Reopening the discussion when there is substantial new information is
one thing, but revisiting past decisions every time someone has some
free time leads to endless delays. All I am saying is that we need to
have some determinism in the process.
My philosophy is to deliver a good technical specification (for some
definition of good) within a relevant time frame. Some of the time
frames are due to other working groups within the IETF and others due to
activities in other standards bodies. Many other standards bodies of
course work on tighter timelines; while I am not saying that the IETF
needs to do that, but we need to get to a stage where our timelines are
more predictable than they are now.
3. Some people ask questions at a face to face meeting and declare
consensus one way or another
You can declare consensus of the people in the room. But as you say,
the rule is that the consensus that counts is the consensus on the list.
That's exactly why you will see the sequence 2a 2b 2c; 2c is to confirm
the consensus in the room reached in 2b. The discussion in 2b may change
some opinions given in 2a.
From 2418 and 4677, my understanding has been that
i) there are certain things such as appointing editors which are up
to the chairs' discretion and appointing chairs which is up to the
ADs' discretion (they may seek open or selective input, but are not
necessarily required to do so).
Exactly. So what is the problem with a chair choosing to seek WG input?
ii) asking for consensus once is sufficient and the process may be
repeated only if things were unclear.
And in my experience, they are often unclear, and new technical
issues are often raised.
iii) asking a question on the mailing list is sufficient to declare
consensus; if opinions were sought at a face to face meeting, the
chair/AD must ask on the mailing list before declaring consensus.
Correct.
Yet I see ADs declaring consensus after getting the sense of the room
at a face to face meeting
But they must always add "to be confirmed on the list" and must always
do so - if they don't, it's a clear process violation and can be
appealed.
This is one of the things I am trying to get a clear sense of. How is
this supposed to work in case of BoFs?
regards,
Lakshminath
and so I am curious whether our process documents are out of date or
whether I am reading them out of context.
They are out of date on many details but IMHO not on these
fundamentals.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf