Subject: Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends (Re: Measuring IETF and IESG trends)

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 13:57:01 -0700

>
>The problems with the Discussing AD proposing text are more in the area
>of scalability. I prefer seeing the authors (or shepherds) be active and
>propose ways to resolve an issue. Or at least the initial proposal,
>review and suggestions from both sides may be needed to converge.

This is not the big problem that other folks have been pointing to.  The
big problem others have been pointing to is that DISCUSSes are
not being used to say "here is a technical issue, for which any
solution acceptable to the community is fine", but are instead being
used to say "here is a technical issue, and here's what it would
take to satisfy me that it is resolved".  The second formulation
shortens easily in the minds of listeners to "satisfy me", and
when there is text presented, it becomes "add/change this as
below to remove my hold on your document".  The other
clause ("or I won't remove my hold") is clearly heard even
in the cases where the AD doesn't say it out loud.   Whether you
realize it or not, there are ADs who either say it about their
own positions or ascribe it to other ADs pretty freely ("That will
never get past the X ADs, unless you change to Y" being a
formulation heard in the halls all to often).

This not just about scaling problems. 

<snip>

>
>- WGs that for some reason have stopped caring about anything else than
>getting the document published. Not care about the particular hoop that
>they have to jump through to resolve a Discuss. (And by the same token,
>not care about Comment level review issues at all).

The statement above is offensive, Jari.  Blaming working groups
for exhaustion after a late surprise is insensitive to say the least,
and that is the case where the late surprise is warranted by
a technical issue that does rise to DISCUSS levels.

Blaming them for exhaustion after intransigence by specific ADs
who really do mean "satisfy me" is worse than insensitive.  It's
blaming the victim.

>Some of these issues could be improved with a clearer definition of
>roles, and some additional guidelines on how to involve the WG.

You know, members of the IESG acting as a check on each other
and resisting efforts to force specific text changes would be useful
too.  If you would like to help personally rather than simply
spread the blame....
			Ted

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

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 17:07:15 -0400

Of course, we also get complaints whenever anyone raises an issue 
without providing text.  So, by a strict reading of the argument, the AD 
is hanged if he provides text (directing the working group) and hanged 
if he does not provide text (you didn't make clear what your problem is, 
and how to fix it.)

In practice, we need to allow both sides of that to occur.  But we need 
to be careful in adjusting the process not to say things like "ADs 
providing text is a bad thing, because it is all to easily read as a 
demand."  (And it is true that such text often is seen as a demand.) 
Or, I suppose, we could say that ADs should never provide text :-)

Joel

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 09:58:02 +1200

> if he does not provide text (you didn't make clear what your problem is,

There is, I think a big difference between an AD writing

(a) "Here is the fix for my problem"
and
(b) "Here is my proposal for one way to fix this issue; there may of
course be other ways to do so, so please let me know what the WG
prefers to do."

But that takes time to type in, and an overloaded AD (or reviewer)
will be very tempted just to write "Suggested fix:".

Maybe we should assign specific (b) semantics to SUGGESTION and
use that as shorthand?

    Brian

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 08:30:08 -0400

Ted,

> The
> below to remove my hold on your document".

Ack. I agree that this is a concern, and something that I forgot to put 
on my list.

Of course, as Joel and Brian pointed out, identifying this problem is 
not always as simple as looking at whether text came from the AD. Also, 
*if* you assume the Discuss was appropriate, presumably the resolution, 
whatever it is, has to satisfy some criteria so that the original 
problem goes away. If an AD is not happy about a particular text 
proposal, is it because the criteria was not met, or was it because he 
or she insisted on particular text? Obviously the former is appropriate 
and the latter is not. And how well were the criteria described? Many 
debates about resolutions involve either unclear criteria or 
disagreements about whether all criteria need to be fulfilled, more than 
the actual words in the resolution.

> for exhaustion after a late surprise is insensitive

I'm sorry you found it offensive. I did not mean to be insensitive. If 
it helps, this item was on a long list of reasons why WG involvement 
isn't being handled as well as it should be. Not the biggest reason, or 
very commonly occurring one. (But I think I've seen a few cases where 
the author/WG was not interested in the particular way to resolve an 
issue, as long as it was resolved. Can't speak about why they were in 
that state.)

Many, if not most reasons on my list rest on the ADs and some on the 
shepherds. I blame myself for not doing a better job in involving the 
WGs and I plan to improve this for the documents that I sponsor.

Jari

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 14:47:28 +0200

Speaking as an individual who has also participated in the work of other
standards organizations - In other SDOs, the IEEE 802 for example,
suggesting a fix for a problem detected in the text at ballot time is
not only welcome, but sometimes the recommended if not mandatory
practice. 

Dan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On 
> Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
> Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 12:58 AM
> To: Joel M. Halpern
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends 
> (Re: Measuring IETF and IESG trends)
> 
> > without providing text.  So, by a strict reading of the 
> argument, the 
> > AD is hanged if he provides text (directing the working group) and 
> > hanged if he does not provide text (you didn't make clear what your 
> > problem is, and how to fix it.)
> 
> (b) "Here is my proposal for one way to fix this issue; there 
> may of course be other ways to do so, so please let me know 
> what the WG prefers to do."
> 
> But that takes time to type in, and an overloaded AD (or 
> reviewer) will be very tempted just to write "Suggested fix:".
> 
> Maybe we should assign specific (b) semantics to SUGGESTION 
> and use that as shorthand?
> 
>     Brian