On 05/16/2013 01:44 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Thursday, May 16, 2013 00:55 -0400 Keith Moore
<moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Which is to say, if there is only a single AD "blocking" a
document, that block is essentially a 2 week affair if you
are willing to push the point. No need for negotiating; if
the WG decides that the AD is totally off base, tell your
sponsoring AD that you're waiting the two weeks. People
(unfortunately IMO) don't push the point nearly enough.
I think it's very unfortunate that IESG has adopted rules that
work this way. Part of IESG's job is to provide independent
review of WG output. It that review can be circumvented
merely by waiting two weeks, that's a bug in the process.
And if an AD raises a DISCUSS about a matter of technical or
document quality (or for that matter, about a process
violation), and the WG isn't even willing to discuss the
point, but instead relies on the two week timeout, I think
that's grounds for appeal to the IAB.
Keith,
I generally agree with Pete although I share your low opinion of
a lot of current IETF work, but your comment above seems to call
for comment from someone, like myself, who has often been
critical of the IESG. I don't think the current rules are
ideal, but the effect of the ones that you and Pete cite isn't
really that a WG can circumvent a review by waiting two weeks.
First, the dissenting AD has those same two weeks to convince
others on the IESG that his or her position is reasonable or at
least needs more extensive consideration. If that is possible,
then there is no longer a single AD objecting and the two week
rule does not apply. If it is not possible, then there is
either something wrong with the objection or the AD making it
and probably it is reasonable for the process to move forward.
I don't think I agree. I do agree that a single AD shouldn't be able
to indefinitely delay a WG's output, and that you want IESG to be able
resolve such issues internally in the vast majority of cases (because
appeals to IAB are very time- and resource-consuming). But I don't think
two weeks is long enough in general to get other ADs to thoroughly
review a document. Two months would be much better.
Now it might be the case that IESG members will help each other out, and
collaborate to log multiple DISCUSS votes to give everybody more time to
review a document. People of good will acting in good faith can
usually find ways to work around buggy processes to make the right thing
happen, at least in the most important cases. But it's not ideal, and
it relies on ADs "getting along" with each other - which creates
incentives for ADs to not do an adequate job of reviewing some
documents, so that they'll be able to call in favors from other ADs when
they need them. So overall I think the balloting process that IESG
currently follows is seriously flawed.
Conversely, a WG that decides to avoid actually engaging on an
issue in the hope of letting the two-week clock run out is
putting itself at considerable risk. The IESG still have the
ability to fire WG leadership and even to close WGs.
In theory, yes. But that hardly seems like a good tool for resolving
issues in a single document, especially when the WG has other ongoing
work that might turn out to be useful. Also, at least when I was on
IESG all of us seemed to be aware that though we did have the authority
and responsibility to push back on poor work, we also had to be mindful
of the potential for the community to mutiny.
Under any
reasonable circumstances, I assume that the IESG would respond
very strongly if an AD pointed out the a WG had ignored an
effort to discuss a substantive issue even if the rest of the
IESG disagreed with that particular AD about that issue.
I'd hope so. But I also think that the process should work even for an
objection raised by an AD who was unpopular with the rest of IESG. Of
course I hope that ADs get along well with one another and work together
to make a better Internet. But I also know from experience that some
ADs tend to have more clout than others, and that the ones with the most
clout aren't always the ones with the best technical judgment.
Keith