On 5/14/2013 10:05 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
...
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.
Sure, but note that there is a specific NON-DISCUSS criteria on this point:
Disagreement with informed WG decisions that do not exhibit problems
outlined in Section 3.1 (DISCUSS Criteria). In other words, disagreement
in preferences among technically sound approaches.
Finding technical mistakes is good, but imposing the IESG's preferred
technical solution over the WG's preference is inappropriate, but happens.
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.
As noted in another post, it means "hold this doc until the DISCUSS is
resolved". Discussions can happen as a result of COMMENTs in any IESG
position.
In particular, disagreements with the WG about
technical quality are always appropriate for IESG to raise.
Yes.
same is
true of requests for clarification.
Sometimes - there's a specific NON-CRITERIA about clarification, however:
The motivation for a particular feature of a protocol is not clear
enough. At the IESG review stage, protocols should not be blocked
because they provide capabilities beyond what seems necessary to acquit
their responsibilities.
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.
Those procedures take time, so even a single DISCUSS holds things up.
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.
Oh, I'm not suggesting removing the DISCUSS mechanism.
First, it ought to have a new name - one that makes clear that this is
heavyweight. Perhaps "HOLD FOR REVISION", which is the net effect it
already has.
The key bug is that the IESG can't easily issue a question without
casting a ballot position, but that may also be a feature. It might be
useful to be able to issue a QUESTION withouth changing a ballot
position, though.
> 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.
Which is appropriate only when the IESG should have the right to force
that resolution, and when the path to that resolution is sufficiently
clear. If there is no path, then vote NO. If forcing resolution and
putting pressure isn't warranted, issue a COMMENT on any other ballot
position.
Joe