I just posted a note on the IETF list in one of the two discussions Pete
is refering to.
Yes, I watched the discussion in the WG.
It took me a while to realize that the WG had really ended up in the
state it did. A state I consider a failure in terms of the document.
So it seems to me that I need to say so during the IETF LC.
Yours,
Joel
On 2/14/17 12:25 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
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/
<http://www.qualcomm.com/%7Epresnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478