Dear IESG, The document should be amended and discussed or just rejected for reasons, but not dead. Many managers/authors in IETF may say I am very busy so I forgot to reply or track the discussions, so does that work for IETF volunteering work ? (it can be a very bad organisation practice). IMHO IETF needs more clear procedures for managers and secretaries (as the draft suggests for clear-roles of secretaries), I don't think RFC2418 is clear and practical enough. In other words the RFC2418 does not have a good section about the secretary role, the section written is small and is not effective. I never heard of a good management practice without secretaries (specially when they are totally volunteering). If there is good management practice in IETF then their MUST be a good secretary practice in IETF WGs (specially with large group participants or/and with many adopted work). For the future we need to expect that the IETF may have higher volumes/demands. Therefore, I object this action from IESG, they need to reconsider updates of RFC2418. I think that the IESG has already a secretary :-) Comments below, AB On 12/9/14, Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 7:27 AM, Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Adrian - I have to say I had an entirely different experience than you >> apparently did with the IETF discussion of this document. Without >> exhaustively reviewing the various threads, my recollection is that the >> *content* of the document was mostly considered useful, while there was >> significant disagreement with the *process* of publishing that content as >> a >> BCP or (later) Informational RFC. I specifically don't recall any >> attempt >> to ascribe anything but good intentions to the authors and I do recall >> many >> descriptions of the content of the document like "very useful material" >> (my >> own words). >> > > I am (or was) also supportive of its publication as an Informational RFC. > Though I have never had or functioned as a WG secretary, I know some > co-chairs find it useful if not necessary to smooth operation of their > working groups. That being the case, RFC2418 clearly says too little about > this as-is. I support updates to 2418, > > I thus expressed support for the work and, relative to the comments of > others, I thought my points were quite resolvable. > > -MSK > On 12/9/14, Adrian Farrel <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > > I have been discussing what to do with this document with the IESG and with > the > authors. Ok, so now the community must discuss with the IESG. I hope the IESG considers the feedback from community. > > It would appear that there is not sufficient support for publishing the work > as > an RFC, so I will mark the I-D as "Dead" and remove it from the process. I don't see any reason of such appear, please explain? > > Of course, you are all welcome to continue to discuss its content, and the > work > could be brought back if there is a desire to do so. We also are allowed to comment on IESG respond. > > I am not going to let this moment pass without spending a few words to say > how > disappointed I am with the tone and lack of constructiveness in the debate > about > this document. It seems to me that a lot of what is bad about the IETF > emerged > during the discussions and that there was very little attempt to ascribe > good > intentions to the authors. I think that should be a cause for shame among > those > who sent comments. I agree with you. The authors of the document done a great effort, and I see the importance of this document. Some external organisation may be against the IETF to improve so they are using their people to enter the IETF and make noise. The IETF MUST stop that noise (i.e. noise means information which is not relavent of which is without reasons or with disruptive to other info). > > I know that it is hard to find time in your busy lives to read and review > drafts. Nevertheless, continuing the thread of review based on one version > of a > document without looking at the new revision is not helpful. I agree, > > I know that you all care a lot about the IETF process and the things that > make > the IETF unique. Nevertheless, the healthy paranoia expressed in many of > the > comments seemed to me to go over the line. There is often a claim that the > IESG > is unwilling to make changes to IETF process, is slow, and ossified. Well, > in > this case it would appear that the IETF community is unwilling to even > acknowledge the current state of its own processes or to allow them to be > documented with consensus for future reference. This can be solved by discussing in face to face meetings. While the remote review/comments don't solve the problem then we solve it in meetings. > > Adrian > > Thanks Adrian, I agree with most of your comment. IMHO we need to determine the participants who objected to the document (update 2418) and know their real-reason, then we can focus the discussion. Best Regards AB