--On Tuesday, 28 January, 2014 01:43 +0000 Stephen Farrell
<stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 01/28/2014 01:30 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
>>
>> And then of course is the "stake in the heart" of any
>> semblance of our document categories meaning anything.
>> ("Sometimes, Informational means there is IETF consensus that
>> this is a good piece of information; sometimes not.") But I
>> suppose that spilled milk is under the dam or over the bridge
>> and we might as well lie in it.
>
> The semblance of that semblance has long left the building
> I reckon.
Hmm. The community went to a lot of effort not long ago,
partially IIR at the urging of the then-IESG and IAB, to
identify RFCs by stream and to allow the streams to include
specific statements about review and consensus in the Status
section. I wouldn't try to refute a claim that few people pay
attention to those labels and that text, but it is there and it
is supposed to be functional.
Again IIR, we did not get rid of AD-sponsored at the time for
two reasons:
(1) Many people felt that there were a few reasons for using
that process. Most of them involved documents that had been
considered in and abandoned by a WG (including when a WG had
been closed with some documents still in progress). If an AD
felt that they should continue to be processed in the IETF where
the context existed, that seemed to be more sensible than
starting over with the ISE and less context. That principle
seems to me to apply whether the document is Standards Track,
inherently Informational, or published as a record of an
alternative that was considered and not chosen. Others involved
suggestions for minor process patches or equivalent, where
AD-sponsorship of a document developed in the community seems
like a better option than the more recent pattern of
AD-initiated, AD-written (even with co-authors), and
AD-sponsored that, given professional courtesy within the IESG,
appears to be a recipe for abuse (even if actual abuses were
rare).
(2) The IESG didn't like the idea of giving up one of its
prerogatives. Since they had to approve the relevant document
and changes, pushing to take it away from them seemed futile.
>>> ...I do not
>>> have any general problem with something that could be sent
>>> to the ISE being handled in this way. And nor should any
>>> of us I reckon, unless we prefer pointless process over
>>> getting-stuff-done...
>>
>> That's exactly my point. Seems pointless to waste time on the
>> process for this document when we could dump it over the wall
>> and let the ISE deal with it. Unless there's some reason it's
>> important for the IETF to waste time on it.
> Ah sorry, the waste-of-time I meant was caring about the
> process here, i.e. what you're doing:-)
>
> I do agree ADs ought use their judgement as to what to
> sponsor. But that's enough of a rule for my taste.
I agree in the sense that I don't think that trying to write
fine distinctions into rules would help in this case. And, to
repeat an argument from another thread that seems far more
applicable here, ADs who are inclined to abuse the system will
always find a way.
On the other hand, members of the community who believe that
particular ADs are not exercising good judgment in this area,
e.g., prioritizing their time and the community's on
AD-sponsored documents over getting the IETF's critical path
work done, should communicate their concerns to the Nomcom
which, I hope, is able to listen to new issues up to the day
that they deliver their reports about selections. There is a
long history that, once a topic like this turns up and is
discussed, ADs who are reappointed consider their reappointment
as evidence of community approval for whatever they have been
doing, so comments to the Nomcom (this year and next) are now a
lot more important than they were a week ago.
Just IMO, of course.
john