Subject: Curiosity

From: "Jiwoong Lee" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 11:51:43 +0900

Questions. Is it a good tradition to form a 'design team' 
in a WG and to let that group design something excluding
the rest of the WG, and to accept the design result 
as a WG official opinion ?
Second one.  Is it a good tradition not to ask consensus 
from the audience at the IETF meeting site, if the design 
team is made of 'core and active' members in it ?
Final one. Is it a good tradition to consume most of the 
meeting time in debating technical matters of an ID, 
between the AUTHORS of that ID ?

PS. What rights does a WG chair have ?

I hope this coming IETF meeting opens its door to all.

many replies plz.
Thank you so much.

Jiwoong

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 22:57:27 -0500

> as a WG official opinion ?

No.  Anyone can form a design team, but no design team has the right 
to speak for the group in its decision making.  The most a design team 
can do is submit proposals and try to gain consensus on those proposals.
the group is free to adopt them, ignore them, or modify them as needed.  
and "official" design teams have no more right to a presumption of their 
proposals being adopted than "unofficial" ones.

> team is made of 'core and active' members in it ?

No.  no design team can dictate consensus. 

> between the AUTHORS of that ID ?

Authors are recognized because they've made substantial contributions;
they are not required to be in full agreement.  IMHO, arguments between
the authors are as valid a use of meeting time as any other arguments -
just as long as the authors don't exclude other parties from providing input.

A good chair will not let an argument run too long if it's not making
useful headway - the participants will be told to take it to the 
hallway, bar and/or mailing list.

Keith

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 10:05:03 +0100

Your questions seem to indicate that you are addressing a specific
problem. The normal path of complaint is the WG chair, the responsible
AD, and, if required, appeal to the IESG.

The purpose of the IETF is to develop the standards needed by the Internet,
with reasonable quality and at reasonable speed, in an open and fair process.
We need to consider all these matters in this light.

At 11:51 08/03/2001 +0900, Jiwoong Lee wrote:
>the rest of the WG,

Yes. IETF working groups are notoriously lousy at designing protocols in 
comittee. However, when they are functioning well, they do criticism and 
exposing of protocol flaws REALLY well. A good design team is ready to 
accept feedback and suggestions on its proposals.

>  and to accept the design result

No. The Working Group output should reflect the (possibly rough) consensus 
among ALL its members.

>team is made of 'core and active' members in it ?

No.
However, there may be times when a WG chair believes that the group has 
consensus before the meeting (from the mailing list), and sees no reason to 
waste the time of the WG reconfirming that consensus in the meeting.
It is then the responsibility of the non-consenting participants to:

1) Make sure their issues are raised ON THE MAILING LIST ahead of the meeting
    Remember that the physical meeting is just a part of the WG.
2) Make the point AT THE MEETING that they do not believe the WG has
    consensus on the document proposed.

>between the AUTHORS of that ID ?

It is very good tradition to consume most of the meeting time at the
IETF in debating technical matters of an ID. The purpose of the IETF is,
after all, to produce the best possible technical specifications.

It is, however, very bad practice to not attempt to address relevant issues 
raised by WG members ahead of the meeting (I do recommend sending out 
agendas WITH ALLOCATED TIMES for the agenda items), and it is totally 
unacceptable practice to refuse to let WG members speak to the issues 
addressed in the meeting (within the usual constraints of time, relevance 
and propriety).

But it is the responsibility of the WG members to indicate their desire to 
speak, and to do the speaking.

>PS. What rights does a WG chair have ?

The rights and duties of a WG chair are documented in BCP 25, RFC 2418, 
"IETF Working Group guidelines and procedures". Section 3.3 appears most 
relevant.

>I hope this coming IETF meeting opens its door to all.

The doors are open. What we do when we get inside is our common responsibility.

--
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, [email-masked]
+47 41 44 29 94
Personal email: [email-masked]

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 19:15:25 -0500

At 11:51 AM 3/8/2001 +0900, Jiwoong Lee wrote:
>Questions. Is it a good tradition to form a 'design team' in a WG and to 
>let that group design something excluding the rest of the WG, and to 
>accept the design result as a WG official opinion ?

Design teams are a solution (not the only possible one, or the only common 
one) to the issue of size.

If you look in on the average working group, even if there are hundreds on 
the mailing list and a couple of hundred in the average working group 
meeting, you will find that there is a relatively small group, rarely more 
than a dozen people, who are actively contributing to any given document. 
This is not because the IETF is exclusive; it is because it is hard for a 
large group to productively work on a document.

What tends to happen is that the working group stratifies. There are a 
small number of people actively providing text, and they often have 
specific expertise. If it's a MIB, several of the direct contributors have 
probably written a MIB before. If it's a routing protocol, there's a good 
chance that the contributors work for router companies or for people that 
will be using the routing protocols. If it is something to do with Public 
Key Infrastructures, they probably have strong credentials in the area. 
There will be a larger group commenting on the text - ensuring that 
capabilities important to them are included, noting problems they see, and 
so on. But by and large, the folks on the list will be silent.

Why let silent majority? I think it's because they are interested more in 
using the technology than developing it, and mostly want to know whether it 
is actually going to be useful. If it is going well, they monitor and move 
on. If it goes into the dumpster, they just move on. If it goes a little 
awry, they will sometimes send individual messages to the list, and more 
often take one or more of the principal protagonists aside, and say "wait a 
second, what's going on here?"

Design teams are a formal designation for "the folks working hardest on the 
technology". They are not the working group, and they don't speak for it. 
But realistically, they are going to have a big impact on the document. The 
working group will comment on and ultimately ratify their work, and if they 
are not responsive to the working group's needs, the chair and the Area 
Director need to know.

If you want to be part of a design team, tell the chair.

>Second one.  Is it a good tradition not to ask consensus from the audience 
>at the IETF meeting site, if the design team is made of 'core and active' 
>members in it ?

Um, what? The recommendation to the IESG to adopt a specification as a 
<mumble> standard comes from the working group, and represents a consensus 
of the working group. Could you please give me - in private mail - the 
context of such a question?

>Final one. Is it a good tradition to consume most of the meeting time in 
>debating technical matters of an ID, between the AUTHORS of that ID?

Well, I would certainly hope that the authors have something to say on the 
topic, but I would also hope that other voices were heard. The purpose of a 
working group meeting is to work out, face to face with high bandwidth, 
those issues which have been difficult in sort out by email, where most 
work gets done.

>PS. What rights does a WG chair have ?

Would the RFC that defines working group procedure have any comment on 
this? Have you read it?

>I hope this coming IETF meeting opens its door to all.

Goodness gracious. Let's try to imagine an IETF meeting that denied access 
to somebody. Not that this hasn't been requested - there are a number of 
folks who argue strongly that the IETF should limit its meeting size and 
tell anyone who doesn't sign up in time that they're late, and you should 
see this mailing list and my in-box when somebody can't get their body into 
a meeting room associated with a mailing list of 50 people, spec'd for a 
meeting of 200 people, and attended by 500...

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 00:25:24 -0500

> second, what's going on here?"

As Fred Baker sums up my 12 years or so involvement with various IETF
much better than I ever could have. ;)

				Valdis Kletnieks
				Operating Systems Analyst
				Virginia Tech