I've mentioned this to Russ privately, but it's worth saying it out loud ...
Phillip:
Obviously, I was not General AD when this happened. However, I was
Security AD at the time, so I was involved in the discussions that
included the whole IESG.
I made my reply to your posting because I want people to realize that
there is another side to the story. We need to learn from the history,
but we need to act toward improving the future.
The IESG spent a huge amount of time on the NEWTRK documents in retreat.
The ISD proposal hit the IESG in a very bad way. The ISD proposal
required the IESG spend a lot of time that the individuals simply did
not have. Further, this came at a very, very bad time. Admin-Rest had
consumed way to many cycles. Perhaps the 1-step or 2-step proposals
could have been separated from ISDs, but that was not the path that was
taken. I do not know the reasons.
IESG discussions are now a lot more visible to anyone from the community who
cares to look, than they were during any part of NEWTRK. Beginning in late
2005, the IESG has published narrative minutes from every official telechat
(details at http://www.ietf.org/iesg/minutes/2010/ for this year).
When I served as IESG scribe, there were VERY few unminuted discussions, and
they were identified as "executive session" in the minutes.
In addition, I THOUGHT Scott Bradner had requested publication of
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-newtrk-repurposing-isd/, and
that was the straw that broke the camel's back, but I didn't see any IESG
evaluation records for any of the NEWTRK documents, except for the DECRUFT
draft
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-newtrk-decruft-experiment/).
Speaking only for myself, I didn't know much about what the IESG thought
before the NEWTRK session at IETF 63 in Paris, even though I was note-taker
for every NEWTRK meeting, and I was an active working group participant
(perhaps too active :-).
I did not have the understanding about the IESG reaction to NEWTRK that Russ
described in his note - and I don't think Russ is mistaken about that
reaction.
We have significantly improved the transparency of the IESG to the community
since NEWTRK was on the docket. I can't tell you that Russ's current
proposal will be accepted, but I think I can tell you that members of the
community will better understand what the IESG's concerns are, and members
of the community will understand which ADs have those concerns, so we can
work on resolving them.
This isn't a knock at anyone serving on the IESG during the NEWTRK era, all
of whom except for Russ have moved on from their honorable service, and
certainly not at Brian, who supported IESG narrative minutes as General Area
Director when that was still controversial. It was just a different time.
We still need to improve, of course, but it's fair to recognize the progress
we've made.
Thanks,
Spencer
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf