I believe that Adrian did right in this case. This was IMO one of the situations which in Spencer's language was 'middle path between lightweight IESG decisions and full process BCP revisions' and a 3933 experiment could have proved it right or wrong, useful or not. The community could not reach consensus to run the experiment and this is one possible outcomes when such questions are asked. Same as Adrian I do not believe that this lack of consensus invalidates process experiments. What I feel is that the key condition in the list drawn by Adrian is the second: > > - Very clear expression of the purpose of the experiment and how it will be evaluated Almost in all cases when this condition was not met I noticed the discussions ran wild and became unfocussed, discussing not about the proposal to run the experiment, but about that subject of the experiment and its presumed results before it had even been started. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of > Adrian Farrel > Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 11:15 AM > To: 'Spencer Dawkins'; 'John C Klensin' > Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: When is a 3933 experiment necessary? [Was: Last Call: <draft- > farrell-ft-03.txt> (A Fast-Track way to RFC with Running Code) to > Experimental RFC] > > Well, is that a meta-judgment call? > > I took the view that the full process expressed in draft-farrell-ft > could not be done by the IESG at their discretion. That is, that some of > the steps proposed constituted a significant variation from documented > processes or well-established behavior. Thus, it was my opinion that if > such changes were to be made they would either need to be documented > direct in a BCP or run as a 3933 experiment. It was also my opinion that > consensus for a BCP would be improbable (looks like discussion on this > list has upheld that view), and so *if* this was to go ahead it would > need to be as a 3933 experiment. > > Turns out, however, that the community is not willing to try this > experiment as currently documented. That's OK. > > I do not take quite the same negative view as Stephen, but I do agree > with Spencer that getting consensus for a process change always looks > like a formidable task. Small changes never address enough of the > problem or the right piece of the problem. Large changes are too much in > one go. :-) So, it seems to be increasingly hard to make changes to our > process. > > While IESG statements remain an option, I would not like to see them > regularly used for things that are definitively a change to consensus- > based process and especially for things that change the way the > community is supposed to behave. > On the other hand, IESG statements are fine for declaring how the IESG > will behave, for advising on action within existing parameters, and for > emergency action. > > So, my conclusion: it would be good to have more process experiments if > people feel the process needs to change. However, it would appear that > such experiments > need: > - Thorough debate on an appropriate mailing list first > Do we need a "process experiments" mailing list? > - Very clear expression of the purpose of the experiment > and how it will be evaluated > - Very tight scoping to a portion of the IETF or of the IETF's > work so that the risk of the experiment simply changing > the IETF's process by default is removed > > Cheers, > Adrian > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Spencer Dawkins [mailto:spencer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > > Sent: 29 January 2013 21:35 > > To: John C Klensin > > Cc: Thomas Narten; adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx > > Subject: Re: FW: Last Call: <draft-farrell-ft-03.txt> (A Fast-Track > > way to RFC > with > > Running Code) to Experimental RFC > > > > Just as a follow-up here ... > > > > I was John's co-author on RFC 3933 > (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3933). > > When we were working on the draft, the problem I thought we were > > solving, was that the IESG needs to update the IETF's BCP processes > > from time to time, but (1) it was like 32 simultaneous root canals to > > actually get community consensus to modify the IETF's process BCPs > > including untried changes that might be improvements, so (2) the IESG > > was using informal IESG statements developed with much less community > > involvement than was expected for process BCP changes, in order to get > > anything done at all. > > > > I (and, I think, John as well) saw RFC 3933 process experiments as a > > middle path between lightweight IESG decisions and full process BCP > > revisions. That's what I thought Section 2 of RFC 3933 was trying to > say. > > > > I had assumed that if the IESG clearly had discretion to do something > > under the current process BCPs, and thought it was the right thing to > > do, they would just do it, rather than set up a process experiment. > > > > For what that's worth. > > > > Spencer > > > > On 1/24/2013 12:34 PM, John C Klensin wrote: > > > --On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 16:31 -0500 Thomas Narten > > > <narten@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > >> This document seems to have a bit of missing the forest for the > > >> trees. In the overall scheme of things, I don't believe the draft > > >> will materially help, and is at best a distraction from dealing > > >> with meaningful problems. > > >> > > >> The crux of the issue is that any attempt at "fast tracking" is > > >> fundamentally about short-circuiting some aspect of our review > > >> processes. We should only do that very carefully. In almost all > > >> cases, individual judgement is needed as to when it is appropriate > > >> to do that. ADs/WG chairs already have some flexibility here. e.g., > > >> a WG can skip WG LC if they think its ... > > > > > > Hi. > > > First of all, I am completely in agreement with Thomas and his > > > analysis. Anything that can reasonably and appropriately be done > > > by this sort of effort can be done by discretion without adoption of > > > a formal procedure and adoption of a formal procedure creates > > > additional and unnecessary risks. > > > > > > As co-author of the process experiment model, I also object to its > > > use when it is not demonstrably necessary, for example to give extra > > > status and force IETF-wide use where the actions suggested can be > > > carried out as a matter of normal discretion (see Section 5 of the > > > document).