Subject: is the WG-Charter concept changed?

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 11:05:11 +0200

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding-05.txt

The Draft above seems already to be used in some areas to rule a procedure 
to decrease the AD's working load and to speed up the reviewing process. It 
gives more importance to the WG Chair's personal opinion, what may have 
cons and pros. I thought the WG Chair decides of rough consensus and if the 
WG deliverables are ready in reference to the Charter, the "contract" 
between the IETF/IESG/IAB community and the WG. Am I wrong or is this changed ?

The word "Charter" is not even used in this Draft. The decisions and 
comments sent to the IESG are therefore subject to the WG Chair's position 
and not to the IESG requirements. I suggested the authors the following two 
additions (tentative text provided). I have not received a response yet 
while I face a case where this point is important and urgent.

1. The first addition is that the proposed write-ups are presented for 
quick comments to the WG.
2. two questions more are added, one on the way the Charter has been 
respected, one on the care given not to favor one technical vision over 
others (one might refer to RFC 3869). I suppose competition in a WG is not 
between propositions but for the best user needs support?

jfc

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

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 16:13:40 +0200

JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
> The Draft above seems already to be used in some areas to rule a 
> procedure to decrease the AD's working load and to speed up the 
> reviewing process. It gives more importance to the WG Chair's personal 
> opinion,

No, it does not do that - it moves some procedural responsibility to
the PROTO shepherd, but it doesn't change either the WG Chair's duty
to judge WG consensus or the AD's responsibility to review the draft
for the IESG.

    Brian

  what may have cons and pros. I thought the WG Chair decides of
> rough consensus and if the WG deliverables are ready in reference to the 
> Charter, the "contract" between the IETF/IESG/IAB community and the WG. 
> Am I wrong or is this changed ?
> 
> comments sent to the IESG are therefore subject to the WG Chair's 
> position and not to the IESG requirements. I suggested the authors the 
> following two additions (tentative text provided). I have not received a 
> response yet while I face a case where this point is important and urgent.
> 
> others (one might refer to RFC 3869). I suppose competition in a WG is 
> not between propositions but for the best user needs support?
> 
> jfc
> 
>

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 10:10:28 +0200

At 16:13 19/08/2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>reviewing process. It gives more importance to the WG Chair's personal opinion,
>

Sorry, Brian - you comment but you do not respond.

1. comment: yes it gives more importance to the WG Chair's personal 
opinion (but this is not a problem if this is consistently organised):
(1) due to  the load on ADs, this may lead to more delegation of the 
AD to the Shepherding Chair, however the Chair has more time: this is 
no problem if the WG knows the report (AD delegates to Chair who 
writes and can less review, Chair is to delegate part of the 
reviewing to WG). (2) the opinion of the Chair becomes the reference 
in the questionnaire, no more the Charter the Draft overlooks.

2. question: is the Charter still the reference when reporting to the 
IESG? If no this is a big change in the IETF. If yes, then this must 
translate into the reporting questionnaire. At least in asking the 
way the Charter has been respected in all technical inclusiveness.

You cannot say something is the reference to follow, and not even 
allude to it in the execution reporting questionnaire.
jfc

>>rough consensus and if the WG deliverables are ready in reference 
>>to the Charter, the "contract" between the IETF/IESG/IAB community 
>>and the WG. Am I wrong or is this changed ?
>>The word "Charter" is not even used in this Draft. The decisions 
>>and comments sent to the IESG are therefore subject to the WG 
>>Chair's position and not to the IESG requirements. I suggested the 
>>authors the following two additions (tentative text provided). I 
>>have not received a response yet while I face a case where this 
>>point is important and urgent.
>>1. The first addition is that the proposed write-ups are presented 
>>for quick comments to the WG.
>>2. two questions more are added, one on the way the Charter has 
>>been respected, one on the care given not to favor one technical 
>>vision over others (one might refer to RFC 3869). I suppose 
>>competition in a WG is not between propositions but for the best 
>>user needs support?
>>jfc
>>

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 10:42:40 +0200

> opinion (but this is not a problem if this is consistently organised):

I believe this is not the case; it is certainly not the intention. I
don't see where the document gives grounds for your statement here,
either.  As I don't believe this premise to be valid, your following

> in the questionnaire, no more the Charter the Draft overlooks.

The questionnaire summarises some things a chair should already be
considering when requesting publication, it doesn't add any new powers.
It is simply a best common practice for the chair to provide this
information to the AD, as a complement to other information (AD review
and reviews by others, mailing list discussions, issue tracker information,
and more... )

> way the Charter has been respected in all technical inclusiveness.

There are many implicit assumptions that of course could be made explicit
in the questionnaire - those which are currently there have been found
good, useful and relevant by chairs and ADs.  

My personal take is that any charter violations should have been taken up
with the AD far in advance of the request to publish; on the other hand, 
it wouldn't bother me too much to add such a question to the questionnaire
as long as it doesn't lead to twentyfourteen other implicit assumptions
being added as explicit questions.  That would change this questionnaire
from a useful tool to a useless piece of extra formalism.

> allude to it in the execution reporting questionnaire.

I think your interpretation of this questionnaire as an "execution reporting
questionnaire" is flawed.  This is just a few pieces of information out of
the many which are relevant in considering the advancement of a particular
document, nothing more.

	Henrik

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 18:48:53 +0200

> >>>reviewing process. It gives more importance to the WG Chair's 

[snip]

>either.

Dear Henrik,
Unfortunately, there would be no lawyers nor tax consultants if there 
was not often a possible broad difference between the author's intent 
and the way his texts are used.

In transferring write-ups  responsibility from the AD to the Chair, 
you necessarily change something (I evaluate from experience as an 
increase of the importance of the opinion of the Chair - but you can 
dispute that). The usual solution when changing something while 
wanting to retain status-quo is to balance the change. I feel that 
copying his constituents (the WG) is necessary (not a simple courtesy 
some may do). This way transparency is maintained an WG level. The 
Chair belongs to the WG not to the IESG.

>As I don't believe this premise to be valid, your following 

The questionnaire should summarise all what the IESG wants to know. I 
quote:" The second part of the task is to prepare the "Protocol 
Write-Up" which is used both for the ballot write-up for the IESG 
telechat and  for the the IETF-wide protocol announcement. "

>and reviews by others, mailing list discussions, issue tracker information,

This is the first part of the task. The second and most important 
part is quoted above.

>good, useful and relevant by chairs and ADs.

I suppose so: this is the first part task (item a/h)
I am interested in what should interest the IESG and the IETF last 
call (second part task [item i/k]). I have two concerns:
- does that address the Charter or did they find they had to change 
targets which may affect what I do, plan or know?
- is it (future) state of the art, what do they propose which may 
help (my) innovation?

>with the AD far in advance of the request to publish;

Violation is a big word and probably a seldom case (it would mean 
that the WG agreed). Things are much simpler: the purpose of the WG 
is to accomplish a task described by its Charter. Easiness or 
difficulty for the WG to understand, adhere, fulfill, limit itself to 
the Charter, simplicity, complexity, need to change, new suggestions, 
etc. in accomplishing the Charter are normal elements of appreciation 
of the work of a WG and information for the future.

>on the other hand,

When you order something there are many many things you do not care 
about in details but a lot globally. They are summarised in the 
question you ask: "is this what I ordered?". I doubt you will pay if 
the vendor just overlook the question. I do not ask for more.

>the many which are relevant in considering the advancement of a particular

Then this is not exactly what your draft describes. What your draft 
describes is more than that. Anyway, when you consider the 
advancement of a document, what is your reference of this 
advancement? I just want this reference (which is the Charter and the 
IETF core values [in particular technical inclusiveness]) to be mentioned.

All the best. Thank you for your work.
jfc

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 12:08:27 +0200

> Sorry, Brian - you comment but you do not respond.

Very well. The PROTO mechanism does not change the WG Charter concept.
In fact, it changes nothing in the standards process. It is an
operational optimisation.

    Brian

> (1) due to  the load on ADs, this may lead to more delegation of the AD 
> to the Shepherding Chair, however the Chair has more time: this is no 
> problem if the WG knows the report (AD delegates to Chair who writes and 
> can less review, Chair is to delegate part of the reviewing to WG). (2) 
> the opinion of the Chair becomes the reference in the questionnaire, no 
> more the Charter the Draft overlooks.
> 
> translate into the reporting questionnaire. At least in asking the way 
> the Charter has been respected in all technical inclusiveness.
> 
> You cannot say something is the reference to follow, and not even allude 
> to it in the execution reporting questionnaire.
> jfc
> 
> 
> 
>>    Brian
>>
>>> rough consensus and if the WG deliverables are ready in reference to 
>>> the Charter, the "contract" between the IETF/IESG/IAB community and 
>>> the WG. Am I wrong or is this changed ?
>>> position and not to the IESG requirements. I suggested the authors 
>>> the following two additions (tentative text provided). I have not 
>>> received a response yet while I face a case where this point is 
>>> important and urgent.
>>> respected, one on the care given not to favor one technical vision 
>>> over others (one might refer to RFC 3869). I suppose competition in a 
>>> WG is not between propositions but for the best user needs support?
>>> jfc
>>>

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 07:58:54 -0400

Hi Jefsey,

>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding-05.txt

I agree with Brian that this procedures does not change the standards 
process and/or the official role of the WG chair.  In fact, the ideas 
in this document were largely adapted from things that WG chairs were 
already doing in some areas or in some groups.  The idea is to ask 
the WG chairs to take more responsibility for the quality of WG 
output, hopefully reducing the number of documents that come to the 
IESG will serious quality issues.

However, I do think it would make sense to consider/discuss your 

>for quick comments to the WG.

The "ballot write-up" portion of the questionnaire does become 
public, and I suppose that it could be reviewed by the WG.  However, 
I am not sure what benefit that would provide...  Before the PROTO 
questionnaire was in use, ADs would provide the ballot write-ups with 
no input from anyone.  In general, they consist of the abstract of 
the document (perhaps with a bit more text to say why the 
specification is needed), a summary of the WG consensus process and a 
statement about who has reviewed the document in the later stages of 
review/approval.  These statements do not end-up in the RFC or in any 
archival location...

What is your concern about these statements?  And, what do you hope 
that a review will accomplish?

I think that we should be careful about adding any more steps to the 
standards publication process, so I will personally tend to push back 
on any steps that do not, IMO, add significant value.

>over others (one might refer to RFC 3869). I suppose competition in 
>a WG is not between propositions but for the best user needs support?

Today, we do not have an explicit check that a WG work item that has 
been submitted for publication matches a WG charter milestone or is 
otherwise within the WG charter.  There is an implicit check during 
AD review, perhaps, but not an explicit one.

I would like to see such an explicit check added, so I personally 
agree that it would be a good addition to the PROTO questionnaire for 
the WG chair to state what WG milestone is represented by a 
particular document and/or otherwise explain how the document is 
in-charter for the WG.  I think that we should consider this addition 
if/when the PROTO process is updated.

Others may disagree, of course.

The second portion of your suggestion is, IMO, already represented in 
the questionnaire, as we ask about the WG consensus process, 
contentious issues, other options discussed by the WG and the 
strength of WG consensus on the document.  It is the role of the WG 
chair to determine WG consensus, and the questionnaire asks the WG 
chair to report on the state of that consensus.

I sense that there is some concern underlying your questions 
regarding the choices being made by a particular WG...  The PROTO 
process isn't intended to, and really won't, affect the authority or 
the responsibility of WG chairs to guide the WG through difficult 
decision-making processes and to make a determination regarding when 
rough consensus has been reached on a particular choice or approach. 
This is the core role of the WG chair.  The PROTO document does give 
the WG chair an explicit opportunity to share any concerns that 
he/she might have about a particular consensus call and/or selection 
process with the AD, but it doesn't change the nature of that process.

If you are concerned that an unfair selection process is being 
followed in a particular WG (or has been in the recent past), you 
should talk to the WG chairs about it.  If you are not satisfied with 
the WG chairs' response, you should raise the issue with the 
responsible AD listed on the charter page.

Margaret

---

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 07:22:01 -0500

Margaret Wasserman wrote:

> standards publication process, so I will personally tend to push back on 
> any steps that do not, IMO, add significant value.

Ah, yes. Thank you (and other ADs) for doing so.

> otherwise within the WG charter.  There is an implicit check during AD 
> review, perhaps, but not an explicit one.
> 
> I would like to see such an explicit check added, so I personally agree 
> that it would be a good addition to the PROTO questionnaire for the WG 
> chair to state what WG milestone is represented by a particular document 
> and/or otherwise explain how the document is in-charter for the WG.  I 
> think that we should consider this addition if/when the PROTO process is 
> updated.
> 

I THINK I understand what Margaret is saying here, but two points pop 
into my mind:

- it is good (see previous Thank You) that the PROTO questionaire does 
not capture the entire WG standards process, not only because this 
becomes a long checklist that is easily treated out as a formalism, but 
also because

- if this check matters, having it come up as "no" on a publication 
checklist after the working group thinks the work item has been 
completed is WAY late on the scale of "late surprises".

I note from time to time that there doesn't seem to be much detail about 
  "becoming a working group document" in our process BCPs (there's 
actually a lot more in the working group chairs/working group leadership 
EDU tutorial, but most of this postdates the BCPs). If we go here, 
perhaps this would be one right time to ask the question?

If we do go here, I like the "or otherwise explain how the document is 
in-charter for the WG" text. If a working group sees a document and says 
"this is obviously the right thing to do, and we agree, so let's publish 
it", there's no reason to respin a charter just to forward a document 
for publication. But writing down why we think publishing is the right 
thing to do, would be useful.

Spencer

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 18:14:12 +0200

Dear Margaret,
I want to be clear first: I certainly consider one or two cases. But 
no ad hominem is intended. To the contrary I try to take advantage 
from experience to see how a slight procedure description improvement 
changing nothing (cf. Brian) could help avoiding a problem I see no 
reason for.

At 13:58 22/08/2005, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
>I agree with Brian that this procedures does not change the 
>standards process and/or the official role of the WG chair.  In 
>fact, the ideas in this document were largely adapted from things 
>that WG chairs were already doing in some areas or in some 
>groups.  The idea is to ask the WG chairs to take more 
>responsibility for the quality of WG output, hopefully reducing the 
>number of documents that come to the IESG will serious quality issues.

Same point of view. I just want still to help decreasing the number 
of that documents, in helping decreasing the chances of appeal.

>I am not sure what benefit that would provide...

Just to help making sure everything (including disagreements) are 
reported the way everyone sees them and reduce the number of 
documents. Let assume you have a disagreement: it is better that 
every party agrees on the way their own positions will be presented 
than the IESG to receive a flood of mails. This way IESG at least 
knows that  each position has been reviewed by its supporter.

>Before the PROTO questionnaire was in use, ADs would provide the 
>ballot write-ups with no input from anyone.

This permitted comments on the WG Chair. I am confident quite the 
same information may be offered by the WG Chair himself, with the 
help/support of transparency.

>In general, they consist of the abstract of the document (perhaps 
>with a bit more text to say why the specification is needed), a 
>summary of the WG consensus process and a statement about who has 
>reviewed the document in the later stages of review/approval.  These 
>statements do not end-up in the RFC or in any archival location...
>

There are probably may cases. Both of trust and distrust. The 
write-up should be received as a comment by the WG through its 
WG-Chair on the accomplished work. This seems important at least in 
three cases I experienced:

1. the charter has actually not been considered because a leading 
group has a predefined vision of it.
2. the charter could not be fulfilled for good reasons
3. the charter is only partly adequate and had to be upgraded

>standards publication process, so I will personally tend to push 
>back on any steps that do not, IMO, add significant value.

Full agreement. I measured that from comments. This can be addressed 
in another way (see below).

>agree that it would be a good addition to the PROTO questionnaire 
>for the WG chair to state what WG milestone is represented by a 
>in-charter for the WG.  I think that we should consider this 
>addition if/when the PROTO process is updated.

There is an implicit implicit check. I would suggest there is an 
implicit explicit check with possible comments. This would only 
translate into  a wording like "if the Shepherding Chair does not 
commit the Charter has been technically inclusively fulfilled the 
part I.x must document it."

The WG Chair already de facto commits there is a rough consensus. 
This would add he also commits the charter has been considered and 
fulfilled on a technically inclusive basis. This follows what Brian 
has reminded. Otherwise he has a standard place to mention and 
possibly explain it.

>The second portion of your suggestion is, IMO, already represented 
>in the questionnaire, as we ask about the WG consensus process, 

I do not want anything else than to help the WG Chair. If the Chair 
knows that he will have to report on the way the WG has considered 
the Charter, this might help him considering better the Charter while 
conducting his WG. We are not here to dispute but to achieve the best 
work in common: the WG community results from the adherence to the 
Charter. If Members see the Charter is not considered enough 
(even  in a different way) they vote with their feet. To common detriment.

>should talk to the WG chairs about it.  If you are not satisfied 
>with the WG chairs' response, you should raise the issue with the 

In one particular current case I certainly consider, this has been 
done. The PROTO target is to reduce the IESG load and paperwork. I 
try to help reducing them in helping a better common understanding 
from the very beginning when a situation developed where a few 
immediate DISCUSS or even the wish to avoid them could prevent a 
difficult IETF LC and appeals. But my point also and mainly concern 
the cases where a WG uncovers new possibilities not covered by the 
Charter: we are here in an innovation area we all agree we want to do better.

I suggest that a flexible way for a WG - through standard procedure - 
to comment its own Charter and to explain some resulting positions 
and choices, can only be of help to everyone and to foster innovation.

All the best.
jfc