Re: call for ideas: tail-heavy IETF process

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

 



On 05/14/2013 04:45 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
Brian, et al.,

On 5/14/2013 1:10 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I think this exchange between Cullen and Ted says it all, except
for one tweak: the IESG is allowed, even encouraged, to apply common
sense when considering the DISCUSS criteria. They are guidance,
not rules.

Also, everybody needs to take the word "discuss" literally. An
entirely possible outcome is that after discussion, the AD says
"Oh. You're correct. Pretend I never spoke!". Or the author says
"Oh. You're correct. We'll change it." Either outcome is good.

The trouble with this assumption is the IESG review process.

COMMENTS are appropriate for feedback, but the IESG review process is too often considered an *opportunity* for the IESG to "make the document better", or (in some case) have an opportunity for their input.

For that matter, working groups are too often echo chambers where a set of people manage to isolate themselves from input from those whose work they might otherwise effect. Some people seem to think that working group output should be sacrosanct. There's absolutely no reason to believe that. WGs often make technical mistakes that are uncovered by external review. Even when no such mistakes are encountered, WG output rarely represents rough consensus of all interested parties, and WGs often fail to do due diligence in considering the interests of the broad spectrum of those potentially affected by their work.

Of course IESG isn't infallible either, and shouldn't behave as if it is. But review by experts from outside of the WG generally seems to improve the IETF's output.

As important as the DISCUSS criteria are, there are NON-DISCUSS criteria that ought to be more carefully followed - including the point that disagreements with the WG or clarifications are not justification for DISCUSS.

Strongly disagree. First, DISCUSS only means that there's something the AD wants to discuss. In particular, disagreements with the WG about technical quality are always appropriate for IESG to raise. The same is true of requests for clarification.

Ted pointed out that DISCUSS doesn't mean the IESG doesn't like a document - agreed, but it *does* hold up a document until the IESG member clears it.

But there are also procedures within IESG to ignore a single DISCUSS vote. So ultimately it takes multiple DISCUSS votes to hold up a document indefinitely.


DISCUSS is a heavyweight mechanism that holds up document resolution; it should be used only where absolutely appropriate. If the IESG wants to have a "discussion" with the authors, they are welcome to participate in the WGs or IETF LC, or to contact them out of band.

DISCUSS is not supposed to be a heavyweight mechanism, and actually it's hard to imagine a lighter weight mechanism that gives IESG review any weight. Informal communication doesn't generally work well in practice because it lacks transparency, and it can cause additional delay without resolving the problem. Voting DISCUSS puts pressure on BOTH the AD and the WG to resolve the issue.

Keith





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