Subject: End of issues

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 13:38:12 +0100

I believe that I now have messages out with suggested resolutions for all 
19 open issues on the BCP document. In almost all cases, these messages 
contain text for proposed edits to the document.

If I don't hear violent objections, I'll ask the editors to prepare a new 
draft based on those proposed edits (+ any textual adjustments they will 
make in their roles as editors).

We should then have a relatively clean document on which to base the next 
step of our conversation, as outlined in my "plan" message yesterday.

Hoping for a convergent process.....

                    Harald

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 10:49:02 -0500

--On Thursday, 13 January, 2005 13:38 +0100 Harald Tveit
Alvestrand <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I believe that I now have messages out with suggested
> resolutions for all 19 open issues on the BCP document. In
> almost all cases, these messages contain text for proposed
> edits to the document.
> 
> If I don't hear violent objections, I'll ask the editors to
> prepare a new draft based on those proposed edits (+ any
> textual adjustments they will make in their roles as editors).
> 
> We should then have a relatively clean document on which to
> base the next step of our conversation, as outlined in my
> "plan" message yesterday.
> 

Harald, 

This is not a violent objection --more like a concerned
whimper-- but I note that we are still turning over rocks from
which new issues crawl.   As recently as yesterday morning, EKR
reopened --IMO in a context that justified it-- the "outsource
everything" assumption that is fairly pervasive in the document.
I don't know what will come of that subthread, but maybe it is
relevant.  And, this morning, some almost-unrelated discussion
identified the fact that, when some of us have been saying "fire
the IAOC" as the appropriate remedy for severe problems, others
have been hearing "tell the Nomcom" or "start a recall
procedure".   Since it isn't clear that we now have a "fire the
IAOC" procedure --which I would define as clearing everyone out
of there except the IAB Chair, IETF Chair, and ISOC President,
and asking all of the appointing bodies to find fresh faces-- we
may need new text to reflect that... At least if others believe
that such a model is useful.

So I'd be happy to look at new text, but I'm not sure we are
finished.

    john

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 11:50:54 +0100

John C Klensin wrote:

>... but I note that we are still turning over rocks from
> which new issues crawl.   

And the first year of operation will certainly reveal
other issues, which may move faster than a crawl.

I am deeply convinced we will be revising this BCP after
a year's experience. So I think we will very soon have to
agree to leave some known issues open.

(fyi, the average lifetime of the first two versions of
the IETF standards process and of the Nomcom procedures
was 24 months... it seems to take us a couple of iterations
and ~4 years to get a process BCP right.)

    Brian

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 16:26:36 +0100

> and ~4 years to get a process BCP right.)

I would like to voice support for Brian's statement. I think that we 
need to realise that we can't foresee all issues and our anticipation's 
of them are best guesses. There is nothing like real-life experience 
and at some point we need start getting that instead of arguing.

- - kurtis -

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 12:31:22 -0500

--On Friday, 14 January, 2005 16:26 +0100 Kurt Erik Lindqvist
<[email-masked]> wrote:
 
> I would like to voice support for Brian's statement. I think
> that we  need to realise that we can't foresee all issues and
> our anticipation's  of them are best guesses. There is nothing
> like real-life experience  and at some point we need start
> getting that instead of arguing.

Ok.  At one level, I agree with this and consider it obvious.
I'm pushing a little harder on (i) getting the things we can
anticipate right and (ii) getting as many of the details as
possible out of the BCP and into the "IAOC figures it out, tells
the community, and listens to feedback" category because...

(1) This administrative process is sucking far more energy out
of the community than, at least in my perception, any of the
standard process retooling activities did, so it would be good
to give us at least a couple of years to recover (and get some
real work done) before we have to even engage on it again.

(2) Some of the details are likely to need reconsideration and
changes much sooner than the 24 months that Brian predicts.  If
we can make those adjustments by IAOC procedural actions, it
will be lots better than if they require opening the BCP.

(3) Because money, jobs, and contracts are involved here, the
risks of dealing with inconvenient provisions by simply ignoring
them, with the expectation that the IETF will ratify the changes
later (or that ratification isn't important), are much higher
than they are with the standards process.  So any very specific
text in the BCP had best be right and, as a corollary, we should
have as little specific text there as is feasible.

     john