Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-andersson-mpls-g-chng-proc-00.txt

From: "David Allan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:54:24 -0500

Alex:

You are offering a compelling argument to eliminate crediting of any authors
on I-Ds etc. We can claim that there is no weight in a consensus based
organization, while we struggle to eliminate the practice of 20 plus authors
on a draft.

I would assume I'm not the only one to note this inconsistency.

Cheers
Dave

<snipped>

>
>Bingo!
>
>It seems to me that this is the only way to ensure fairness in the IETF,
actually. Once 
>we start introducing any sorts of preferences or "weights", it may become a
too 
>attractive backdoor around the IETF process.

>Also, what does "weight" of a liaison or an ID really mean in a _consensus_
based 
>organization? That we should suddenly have a worm and fuzzy feeling about
that doc? And 
>how does this "weight" compare to, for example, the weight of the consensus
within the 
>IETF to not do what's proposed, if that happens?

---

From: Kireeti Kompella <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:48:00 -0800 (PST)

Hi Dave,

On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, David Allan wrote:

> on I-Ds etc.

Entirely orthogonal.  Every ID is given weight 1, independent of where
it came from, who the authors are or even how many authors there are.
If the ID came from a design team chosen by the WG chairs, by the ADs,
even by the IETF chair himself, the weight is still 1.

> We can claim that there is no weight in a consensus based

If there are too many authors, they become contributors.  Simple.
No fuss, no mess, no struggle.  The main reason (I believe) is to
scale the RFC Editor process.

(To repeat, this is completely unrelated to the argument at hand,
viz., should liaisons and IDs from other SDOs have more weight than
individual submissions.)

> I would assume I'm not the only one to note this inconsistency.

You're the only one (so far) to see this as an inconsistency.  But
I'd rather not go down this (rathole) until we have settled more
important issues.

Kireeti.

---

From: Curtis Villamizar <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 17:55:21 -0500

In message <[email-masked]>, "
> organization, while we struggle to eliminate the practice of 20 plus authors

The author list was never supposed to be a factor in evaluating an i-d
so its just an indication that the authors don't get it.  Particularly
when it becomes obvious that some of the "authors" have never read the
draft.

> I would assume I'm not the only one to note this inconsistency.

I wouldn't call it an inconsistency.  Just a reflection that the real
authors did not understand that the process didn't consider the author
list to be a factor in evaluation.

> Dave

Curtis

---

From: Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:26:15 -0800

David,

  What Kireeti and Curtis said, and to make things worse, I for one
  review the documents that try to make their front page more
  convincing than their substance with additional scrutiny...

-- 
Alex