Subject: Re: Making the Tao a web page

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 11:30:46 +0200

Dear Paul Hoffman

>Simpler than the above: make it a web page
> (as Brian points out, we already have a good URL),
> have one editor, have one leadership person who
> approves non-trivial changes (I think "IETF Chair" fits here well),
> have a "last modified" date on it, and update it as needed. If there
> is consensus in the community to do this, I'm happy to take on
> the HTMLizing and skip the RFCizing for this round.

I thank you for this opportunity. I think we need both the webpage and
the RFCs to make it more understood to all volunteer members around
the world. As a new comer to IETF my volunteer process experience was
started not good so far (see below attached), as I feel lost some
times by group-practice-policy, I think list leaders/holders should
help in such situations. I am reviewing the draft
<draft-hoffman-tao4677bis-15> and will comment on the changes and
future updates. Please note that practice may not always be perfect
like documents/webs procedures.

In conclusion, All policy procedures of IETF SHOULD be perfect, hope
we do our best together for this. I will write my comments on
some-points of overall procedures and for your draft, I also will try
to include New-Comers consideration by chairs and memebrs, so
procedure consider their experience and that do not be blocked by
informal directions a group takes over.

Abdussalam Baryun
University of glamorgan, UK
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
To: manet <manet at ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [manet] I-D Action: draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-15.txt
From: Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun at gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 09:41:33 +0200

Dear All,

I beleive that we are all informally equal in terms of rights and
responsibilities, but in organisations we have formal responsibilities
and rights to make work-processes progress to the direction of the aim
and objectives of the organisation, not in the direction of some
individuals decisions. I beleive the best practice for IETF groups is
in RFC2418 and RFC3934.

On 5/18/12, Stan Ratliff <sratliff at cisco.com> wrote:
> It has never been the process (at least in the MANET working group) to
> formally track each and every comment coming in on a draft and actively
> notify/dispose of said items. This is rooted in the notion that the IETF is
> a volunteer organization; as such, we've all got "day jobs", and do the best
> we can. Another reason for this (slightly informal) process model is to keep
> the group from spinning ad-nauseum, generating vast amounts of email on
> trivial topics. This discussion is a reasonably good example of that very
> thing.

The process for MANET WG SHOULD follow the RFC2418. IMHO the IETF is a
formal organisation, and yes it is structured of volunteering members,
but it is not informal organisation. Please note that number of emails
SHOULD not be restricted, but the content of messages MAY be
restricted. Yes our relationships are RECOMMENDED to be friendly and
informally social to inhance the group activities.

All informal models give chances of more power to organisation
managers. I don't agree with the informal-process model, but agree
with RFC2418-process model.

>
> You made some comments/suggestions on OLSRv2. They were considered by the
> authors, and by the working group members. The authors didn't agree with you
> in all cases, and the working group, via its silence, indicated *they*
> didn't agree with you either. And now, apparently, you want to re-litigate
> all or part of that. I for one am not interested.
>

Silence is not a reaction (e.g. not an indication), because as you
mentioned we are volunteers and we have jobs, therefore, silence most
possibility means I am bussy, not meaning I agree nor disagree.

> My opinion is that OSLRv2-15 has cleared WGLC, and will be forwarded to the
> AD's/IESG for review and publication. If the working group members *DO NOT*
> agree with me, then let the fire-storm of emails commence.
>

I reply to this call that I *DO NOT* agree to give forward to
OLSRv2-14 or OLSRv2-15 until I comment on it, or only after concensus
collected for the decision (i.e. it is easy to collect electronically,
as in RFC2418 does not have to be face-to-face collecting). Regarding
the OLSRv2-15 draft it is better than OLSRv2-14 because it reduced my
confusions, but I will need some time to review OLSRv2-15 and comment
on it as well. Regarding fire-storm emails, it seems it will not be
happening in MANET WG, maybe active memebrs are about 60, not sure.

In conclusion, from the group chair last message, I understand that
there was no concensus collected for OLSRv2 to go forward, so the
MANET-WG still didn't make last decision yet.

I am sorry if I made any disturbing to any. In the end of all
processes I am interested in understanding and participating in IETF.
If the group or group chairs decides that I stop emailing in MANET, I
will stop without any complains to higher levels, and go to another
IETF group. Thanking you,

Best Regards,
Abdussalam
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 11:45:16 +0200

Hi

I agree with you, and would add we need the web and RFC so that we get
things right. However, to make quick progress in RFC is not to wait
for discussions to end, but to open a restricted period/window for
discussion which MUST end some date and make the changes/updates, then
take the final consensus,

Best regards
AB

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
On Jun 3, 2012, at 6:34 PM, John C Klensin wrote:

> ... I further guess that
> "on an ongoing basis" will be better for the document than
> getting a new snapshot out as an RFC and seeing how long it
> takes to get stale and how long after that it takes the
> community to notice. ...

I second the above statement
(my apology to John for quoting this single sentence out of his whole msg)

Lixia