Dave,
I offered an opinion based on some considerable history and
perspective drawn from discussions about what (independent of
the IETF) the RFC Editor should publish that go back at least to
the early 1990s as well as the discussions that went into RFC
4844 and 4846. The IESG and ISE will do whatever they decide is
appropriate. I don't think turning this into a debate is a
good use of anyone's time, nor do I think either of us is likely
to persuade the other, so this note is merely an attempt to
clarify my view of the issue in the light of your note.
The ISE is appointed as the lead of an editorial acquisition and
decision process within the boundaries of a particular,
presumably coherent, series of documents. RFC 4846 gives
examples of what the scope of the independent submission series
is about and includes. It was not intended to be an exclusive
list and, if Nevil decides to change or interpret policies in a
way that expands the list, I will defend his right to do so
(even though I may also explain why I think expansions in
certain directions would be a bad idea).
Against that backdrop, I note that, at least as far as I know,
the process that is now known as the Independent Stream has
never published a (non-satirical) commentary on an IETF process
or even an informational, editorial, or opinion document about
how the IETF should operate. I think there are good reasons for
that, at least unless the piece is a real critique of IETF
decisions.
If you, as author, or Nevil, as ISE, concludes that the document
in question is not about IETF processes at all and that it is
completely independent of both draft-farrresnickel-harassment
and/or the current anti-harassment policy, I will separately
point out that the RFC Series has never before, at least in my
recollection, published a (non-satirical) document in sociology,
organizational behavior, personnel management, or, for that
matter, a book review of a romance novel. There may be (and
probably are) pieces that overlap into one or more of those
areas but I don't believe there are any that do not contain at
least a major element connected specifically to computer
networking.
If Nevil decides to expand the series into any of those other
areas, I hope he will choose to discuss the decision with his
editorial board (of which, in the interest of full disclosure,
I'm a member), the IAB and/or RSOC, and the community. That
discussion would, I hope, be about the expansion of scope and
the precedents it sets for the series and his successors, not
about a particular paper even though, in practice, it takes a
paper to start the discussion. And, again, if he decides to
make the expansion, I will support his right to do so.
None of the above has anything to do with whether the
Independent Submission Editor is "independent" or not. I have
not seen any issue of actual or attempted IETF (or IESG) control
in this particular case and have vigorously fought every attempt
at such control I've seen in the last two decades (RFC 4846 is,
to some small extent a symptom, especially given suggestions at
the time that all parts of the RFC Editor function be put
directly under IESG control). In this particular case, I
believe the IESG should have spoken up and said "yes, there is
overlap, hold publication until the IETF policy documents are
resolved". They didn't exercise even that much control (the
exact opposite of efforts at too much control). Had they said
so, 4846 quite deliberately allows the ISE to say "thanks, but I
have my reasons and I'm not going to do that". I think the
community expects that anyone who would hold the ISE role would
use that authority only very carefully and in clear or extreme
circumstances, but it is a key part of "independent". Your
experience and perspective obviously differ.
best,
john
--On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 08:05 -0700 Dave Crocker
<dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 9/22/2015 12:07 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/conflict-review-crocker-dive
>> rsity-conduct/),
> ...
>> I believe
>> that, if both documents are to be published, the community
>> would be better served by having these documents published
>> together and having at least one reference and explanation of
>> the different perspectives in one (or both) of them.
>
>
> There is much that I agree with in John's posting, but this
> isn't one of them.
>
> This independent document is independent. It is a discussion
> piece by a couple of IETF participants.
>
> The other document is a product of the IETF and it is intended
> to become part of the formal IETF administrative structure.
>
> If it takes work to understand the very considerable
> importance this difference means, in terms of role and
> handling of an independent document, then please do that work.
>
> One of the less-pleasant bits of education I received
> throughout the /seven months/ it has taken to get through the
> 'Independent' stream process is that it is far from
> independent. There seems to be a common view that documents
> on that stream must be meaningfully subservient to the IETF,
> rather than actually providing independent input to it.
>
> I won't distract this thread further with details about the
> multiple conceptual problems that afflicted the handling of
> this document, other than to ask that no one try to impose
> further restrictions on a document that really is intended to
> be /independent/.
>
>
> d/