Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") side meeting at IETF105.)

Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> · Fri, 19 Jul 2019 09:10:59 -0400



    On 7/19/19 6:55 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:

    
      On Jul 19, 2019, at 6:17 AM, Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

      
        I also see no reason to have a presumption, for
            example, that a WG is "right" in a matter that is outside of
            its subject area.
        

      I agree.   However, we’ve been trying to improve our
        cross-area review diversity since I was on the IESG, and
        probably since you were, and it’s not clear to me that there’s a
        lot more win to be had here.  Where we do succeed, I think it’s
        because we’re able to rope experts in to the working group.   
    
    I've noticed the effort to improve cross-area review.  I can't
      tell yet how effective it is, but I'm pleased to see the effort
      being made.
    
      The IETF last call process doesn’t work well.   
    
    I agree.   Last Call is mostly useful for problems that are easy
      to fix, and uncontroversial.   That seems to be a tiny fraction of
      the problems that still exist by that time.
    It's long seemed to me that the points at which IETF manages to
      get some broad review on an idea or proposal are at the BOFs that
      precede WG formation, and Last Call.   These also seem like the
      times at which broad review is least likely to be effective
      (unless, as is sometimes the case, the WG starts with a document
      that it believes is already a mature proposal).   

    
    The best time period for broad review seems to be after a fairly
      complete proposal exists, but before there's a lot of investment
      in it.  The WG is more receptive (less exhausted) at that point,
      and changes made as a result of such feedback are less likely to
      be disruptive.

    
      That’s why I think this is a bit of a non-sequitur to the
        “living documents” discussion.  Yes, this is a problem, and we
        should be careful not to make it worse.  But I really don’t
        think it’s the case that the people who have organized this
        meeting are unaware of the issue.
    
    One reason I'm interested is that I'm intrigued by the potential
      for "living documents" to facilitate earlier broad review of WG
      proposals.   I think use of LDs has the potential to get feedback
      to the WG sooner, and also track how the WG responds to such
      feedback.   I can imagine a day when the most external reviews
      come in response to "First Call" or "Second Call", rather than
      Last Call, and the IESG final review consists largely of looking
      at how the WG and authors responded to the earlier calls for
      feedback, and whether the document has changed in such a way as to
      present new issues not previously identified.    Ideally the
      responsible AD will have been tracking such feedback and responses
      all along.

    
    Another reason I'm interested in LDs is that some people seem to
      want to use them as a way to bypass community-wide review.   There
      may be cases for which bypassing such review is Mostly Harmless,
      but offhand I don't see a way to draw a clear line between Mostly
      Harmless and Potentially Harmful.   

    
    So I see both a potential for positive change, and a danger of
      negative change.   I don't know how aware the people who have
      organized the meeting are of these potentials, though I expect
      that they're at least somewhat aware.   Mostly I've been
      responding to opinions expressed on the list.
    Keith