On 13 Feb 2017, at 23:07, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 2/13/2017 8:50 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
The WG participant who felt that the functionality should be in-scope
and is perfectly within bounds to make the case that the functionality
is somehow necessary during Last Call. The chair and/or AD should
summarize why they judged the functionality to be out of scope. Others
in the community might want to take up the argument and explain why it
should be added.This sounds like reasonable theory, but is actually rather destructive practice.
It takes the position that Last Call is acceptable to use as a form of appeals process, where folk who have been working on the topic for an extended time have to defend their choices to a collection of other folk who are new to the topic and are, therefore, making snap judgements.
While, yes, there will be times that the new folk see something new or better, that's not the usual occurrence. The usual occurrence is that folk who are experienced with the topic and are tired from the extended effort have to rehash their work and defend it to folk who have not done their homework.
Either working groups are where the work really does get done or they aren't. The burden of having to worry about and deal with a larger, less-involved community being frankly encouraged to second-guess the folk who have actual skin in the game, is an example of what makes the formality of IETF process onerous.
Last Call should not require a working group to be subject to random demands to defend itself. It should be for independent reviews that see something the working group missed. Missed is different from "we had a choice and we made it".
If a fresh reviewer really does do their homework and really does present a good case for making a different decision, that's fine. But it also is quite different than supporting the re-hashing exercise that occurrs when an existing wg participant expresses dissatisfaction with a decision made during normal wg processes.
Would that we disagreed.
Nowhere did I say that Last Call should be an opportunity to simply rehash, without having done homework. Indeed, you will note where I said:
Do note that in both cases, I think it's only fair that the person bringing up the issue clearly states what's going on. For instance, in the second case the person should really have said, "This was judged out-of-scope by the WG/chair, but I think it ought not be out-of-scope because of X, Y, and Z". Simply saying, "Please make this change to the document" as if it were never discussed before is not helpful to the rest of the list during Last Call.
For a WG participant to just throw out the same argument made earlier without explanation and with the expectation that the WG ought be required to relitigate the whole discussion is not reasonable. The case needs to be made that the WG (or the chair in judging) did in fact miss something when they came to rough consensus. The chair, not the entire WG, should explain why the conclusion was arrived at. (That should really be written up in the shepherd report, if we're being diligent.) Others can choose to ask questions or push back on either position if they think something serious has been missed. But to dismiss, out of hand, any such claim with "too late, already decided" is also unreasonable.
Homework is required. Pointing out the failure is required. Avoiding simply restating a preference is required. I'm just objecting to the blanket statement, "If the WG came to consensus, even roughly, the discussion is over."
(As I said earlier, in the case of something being declared out-of-scope, I'd expect the person bringing up the point to explain why being in-scope was essential. To fail to do so is bogus.)
ps. Pete's other point was about a claim that an issue didn't really get settled and needs further review. That's quite a different case. Maybe it's worthy for LC discussion. Maybe it isn't. Dunno.
pps. There's at least one case where I chose to attempt to use LC as a kind of appeals process, since I deemed the wg process to have been significantly flawed, including the cognizant AD. Like all good rules, there need to be some exceptions thoughtfully permitted, though of course my effort in this example of an exception bore no fruit...
I also agree that this should be fairly unusual. Again, what got to me was the automatic rejection of such an argument.
pr
--
Pete Resnick http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478