Subject: Proposal for a revised procedure-making process for the IETF

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 10:15:57 +0200

A proposal for managing the process of determining the IETF process
-------------------------------------------------------------------

History and status
------------------
Since 199x, the IETF's process issues have been handled by a couple of 
working groups, POISED and POISSON.
POISED finished its initial work of defining the IETF process and was 
closed down; POISSON has tackled issues that have occured since that time.

It is a widespread impression that the process currently is not working 
terribly well.
Debates in the WG tend to be wide-ranging, contentious, inconclusive and 
not terribly well informed; many members of the community are staying away 
from the WG because they do not relish the style of dialogue; it takes a 
very long time to get consensus on even reasonably simple things.

These are all consistent with the characteristics of long-lived working 
groups; in other areas, the Right Thing is most of the time to close the 
working group and start over.

This proposal suggests the same thing for POISSON.

A new way of attacking the problem
----------------------------------
There are 2 overriding concerns when deciding how to decide policy for the 
IETF:
- The process must be open. Anything else would compromise the essential 
nature of the IETF.
- The process must achieve quality results. Anything else endangers the 
function and continued existence of the IETF.

The proposal below aims to achieve those two things.

The proposal is funded on the idea that process work is more like an area 
than it is like a working group; there are problems that pop up from time 
to time, there is a need for a constant ability to address issues, there 
are large and small pieces of work that need to be done.
However, the idea of a process area has been tried (and has failed) in the 
past; for one thing, there simply isn't enough work around to make it 
necessary to have a whole area for it.

Proposal components
-------------------
Procedural issues are a task of the General Area of the IETF.
The IETF Chair will act as AD for this area, and perform the usual 
functions of process management for the process-making process.

There will no longer be a special IETF process list; instead, issues of 
interest to the community will be raised on the general IETF list.
This list will be used for pre-charter discussion of new items, as well as 
general process issues.

When items of a significant nature are to be considered, working groups 
will be chartered as needed. Each group will have a scope limited to one or 
a few documents, or portions of documents, will work out or recycle those 
documents only, and will then shut down.

WG documents will generally be Last Called in the usual fashion and issued 
as BCPs. Non-WG documents will be discussed as needed, on the IETF list or 
elsewhere, and will get a 4-week Last Call.

At the pleasure of the IETF Chair, there may exist a directorate to
help in generating coherent plans for the area.

Proposal discussion
-------------------
The existence of formalized, short-term working groups may help with the 
problem of "WG rot" that has characterized the POISSON effort.
The increased focus may also help with the problem that POISSON has had 
with meeting at IETFs: when it is scheduled opposite other meetings, there 
will always be participants who have no possibility of attending; in 
particular, most of the IESG will be busy in other meetings.
More focused WGs will not need so much attention.

Not having a special "process" list is one of the more uncertain aspects of 
this proposal.
The advantages of using the general IETF list are:
- A great number of relevant people are already present on this list
- It is better linked into the community than a process-only list is likely 
to be

The disadvantage is that all participants will have to read process-related 
discussions whether they are interested or not.
This suggests that the threshold for creating special lists for specific 
issues should be rather low, even for documents that do not require the 
full apparatus of spinning up a working group.

There is a very real danger that documents that are too small to require a 
working group will get inadequate review. This can be ameliorated by:

- discussing the documents on the IETF list
- using 4-week Last Calls, with pointers to appropriate mailing lists
- the ADs requesting independent review of documents

Comments on this proposal are sought; the general IETF list is the list 
that this proposal advocates for such comments, but the attempted "process" 
list ([email-masked]) may be more appropriate for detailed 
(nitpick-style) discussions.
The General AD will monitor all 3 relevant lists, and make a decision on 
the proposal no earlier than October 19.

[END]

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 08:02:25 -0700

Harald,

Without touching on the question of working group rot, I'll note that the 
difficulty with your proposal is that process issues tend to arise 
individually and periodically, and often need a timely resolution.

Working group chartering, and even mailing list setup, has quite a bit of 
overhead.  It is unlikely that the effort associated with them will be 
viable for the periodic (multiple times per year) requirements of process 
discussion.

Note, for example, some recent issues about a particular working group's 
process that warranted -- and received -- immediate discussion and 
clarification.  My own sense of the Poisson discussion was that it was 
reasonable in tone and had a constructive resolution.

  - - - - -

Hence, let me suggest a revision to your proposal, intended to respond to 
the concern but lighten the administrative burden:

Retain the list and the group.  Permit open discussion, in order to provide 
a separate venue for raising issues.

The group chair will assess rough consensus about the need to pursue a 
topic and will draft a task description to serve as a mini-charter 
statement of work.  It will be sent to ietf-announce, to permit non-poisson 
mailing list members to know of the new activity.

The chair will then manage the task process in the usual way.

d/

----------
Dave Crocker  <mailto:[email-masked]>
Brandenburg InternetWorking  <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253;  fax +1.408.273.6464

---

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 13:19:53 -0400 (EDT)

[ Taking note of Harald's suggestion to use the general IETF list I
    trimmed the cc.... ]

On Fri, 12 Oct 2001, Dave Crocker wrote:

    Working group chartering, and even mailing list setup, has quite a bit of 
    overhead.
    ...
    Retain the list and the group.  Permit open discussion, in order to
    provide a separate venue for raising issues.

Dave, although it may be true that our current process for creating
working groups can be cumbersome, I am expecting the IESG to streamline
the process of "new" working groups for process issues.  Obviously this
requires a bit of "change" in how the IESG works but surely they realize
this is necessary for the proposed process to work and it will get done.

I use the word "new" in quotes because another observation I want to
make is I'm not convinced each working group will be all that new.
POISSON, like most working groups, has its core that grows and shrinks a
bit with each issue.  I don't expect that to change with this new
process, and it would be unfortunate for me to be wrong in this case.
In fact, it's possible the "streamlining" would including lining up and
ensuring the participation of a "core."

On the other hand, creating a new working group and a new list has one
feature that is an explicit goal.  IETF working groups always have an
abundance of "fringe" participants and for long-lived groups this is
especially problematic: you get on a list and you never get off and you
find yourself interested or otherwise involved in topics you otherwise
would not have bothered with.  Creating new groups and new lists as
needed increases the likelihood that the participants are both
interested and active.

As far as mailing lists go, the only "overhead" is the transition to it
while we wait for those who want to subscribe to be subscribed.  This
has no easy solution I can identify but I'm not convinced it's a real
burden anyway.  Setting up the list itself is certainly not an issue,
unless you're planning to be doing it all day long.  And I don't see how
a participant could view it as a burden since subscribing to a mailing
list is the cornerstone of how the IETF operates.

Finally your last sentence seems to suggest that open discussion is some
how coupled with a long-lived working group and its mailing list.  Even
if that were true, the proposal is to use the general IETF list, which
is a mailing list that is both open and long-lived.  It's not a working
group but I don't see how that matters.

Jim

-- 
--
James M. Galvin <[email-masked]>
Co-Chair of POISSON but speaking for myself

---

From: Susan Harris <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 13:46:54 -0400 (EDT)

I'd second Dave's suggestion that we leave the POISSON list as is. Aside
from the overhead of multiple lists, confusion might reign about which
list is discussing which topic, with people ending up posting to multiple
lists, etc.

> More focused WGs will not need so much attention.

True, fewer people would attend the more focused groups, but wouldn't
they still face scheduling conflicts with other WGs?
(Feel free to tell me if I've missed the point ...)

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 11:01:24 -0700

though i appreciate the intent.  i would appreciate a separate mailing list
for process issues as opposed to technical stuff.  it is my job to work on
the technical stuff at some depth.  the process discussions often get a bit
too detailed <g>.

randy

---

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 14:38:19 -0400 (EDT)

[ trimming the cc list to just [email-masked] ]

On Fri, 12 Oct 2001, Susan Harris wrote:

    I'd second Dave's suggestion that we leave the POISSON list as
    is. Aside from the overhead of multiple lists, confusion might reign
    about which list is discussing which topic, with people ending up
    posting to multiple lists, etc.

If there are multiple lists than there must be multiple working groups
(or BOFs with the goal of becoming a working group).  This would be
similar to the ordinary way in which any area in the IETF operates.
Note that the model is to operate sort of like an area without actually
being one.

Thus, there should be no additional confusion than that which IETF
participants already experience.  :-)

This is why all discussions start in one place, the IETF general list.
And it needs to be that list and not a separate "process" list in order
to be exposed to the greatest cross section of the community (if not the
entire community).

As with any IETF issue, if the discussion warrants detailed attention
(as a BOF with a tentative goal of becoming a working group), then a
separate list is created and discussion moves there.  Harald has already
suggested that perhaps the threshold for what needs to move will be
lower for process issues than it ordinarily is for issues on the IETF
list.  That is something we will have to determine as the need arises.

Jim

    

    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
    manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/ob/adm.pl>

---

From: "Eliot Lear" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 15:47:09 -0700

The IETF list should be reserved for proper technical discussions, such
as the format of RFCs and Internet Drafts, NATs are good/bad/ugly, "add
me/remove me" messages, and conference location debates.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 17:53:57 -0700

Jim, et al,

>this is necessary for the proposed process to work and it will get done.

giving full credit to everyone's clear and honest good intentions and good
actions -- especially the kind folks on the IESG --  the question is why
you have that expectation?  we are talking about a management body that is
vastly overworked, and that has a very, very stable long-term pattern of
handling working group creation.

And unless the processes inside the IESG have changed, it is even more
consensus oriented than the rest of the IETF.

That takes time.  A lot of it.  And it is very difficult to streamline such
a process.

At any rate, the topics that poisson has had to cover have been rather
narrow and isolated.

now, it well might be that an effort to query the community about process
topics that could be improved would produce a substantial list of topics
that are legitimately in need of work.

THAT would warrant a working group.  (it would also be at least a 2-year
working group, i suspect.)

however the pattern, to date, has been topics that have come up far more
piecemeal and have needed more timely response than is possible if each
must wait for a critical mass of topics, before forming a working group.

>would not have bothered with.

Ahhh.  Social engineering.  Entirely rationale.

However we stink at it and need to avoid opportunities like this to pretend
that we have a clue about how to do it.

>group but I don't see how that matters.

My wording was obviously inadequate.  You are not the only one to think
that I was referring to "openness".  I wasn't.

I was referring to the easy, spontaneous "collaboration" that is like
walking down the hall to consult a colleaque. I am now calling this the
"water cooler effect".

Hence the question reduces to:  what existing list should be used?  The
IETF main list, or a different list?

Given that we are considering a rather specific category of (ongoing)
topics, then forcing them on to the IETF list is likely to have unfortunate
side-effects on the IETF list.  (What happens when you remove the water
cooler is not a good thing.)

d/

----------

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 16:15:06 +0700

Date:        Fri, 12 Oct 2001 10:15:57 +0200
    From:        Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <930592431.1002881757@[192.168.1.31]>

  | Since 199x, the IETF's process issues have been handled by a couple of 
  | working groups, POISED and POISSON.

There was also poised'95 (just to pick nits, so I am allowed to send to
the ietf-process list ...   This is clearly relevant to the poisson WG,
so sending to its list has to be relevant, and apparently the trash bag
of ietf lists is important to this as well...)

  | POISED finished its initial work of defining the IETF process and was 
  | closed down;

And a day later (or the same day), poised'95 was created.
When that "finished" ...

  | POISSON has tackled issues that have occured since that time.

This should be some kind of hint (even the mailing list has remained
basically stable throughout that time, it is still poised@...)

If you were just proposing that it is time to kill poisson and create
a new WG to take its place (because poisson has filled up too much I-D
space, or is reaching some other limit), I wouldn't mind - meaningless
change doesn't tend to do too much harm.   But this isn't anything like
that.

  | It is a widespread impression that the process currently is not working 
  | terribly well.

That may be, but this is no improvement.

I know that there have been IESG members (past and present) who have
disliked the poisson working group, as it has failed to rubber stamp
proposals that (to the ADs) are obviously the right thing to do.

I have disliked other WGs that have failed to rubber stamp my proposals
which were (and still are...) obviously the right thing to do (to me).
That doesn't mean I'm about to propose killing any such WG in retribution.

Aside from that poisson has worked about as well as most other WGs that
are around - and probably still would be, it it was allowed to actually
go ahead and do some of the work it should be doing, rather than being
stifled by "we don't want to open that can of worms just yet" all the time.

  | Debates in the WG tend to be wide-ranging, contentious, inconclusive and 
  | not terribly well informed; many members of the community are staying away 
  | from the WG because they do not relish the style of dialogue; it takes a 
  | very long time to get consensus on even reasonably simple things.

That cannot possibly be helped by starting the debates in a wider community,
it can only be made worse.   While exposing process issues to a wider group
can't hurt the overall process, doing that in the name of making things run
more smoothly is not rational.   Not even close.

What's more, the "style of dialogue" on poised has in general been reasonable,
certainly better than on some other WG lists (if not as good as all of them).
It has tended to be orders of magnitude better than the IETF list.  If there's
any list to stay away from in the IETF, it is the general IETF list.

  | These are all consistent with the characteristics of long-lived working 
  | groups; in other areas, the Right Thing is most of the time to close the 
  | working group and start over.
  | 
  | This proposal suggests the same thing for POISSON.

Maybe I missed something, where is the "start over" in this proposal?

  | The proposal is funded on the idea that process work is more like an area 
  | than it is like a working group;

except that, as you point out, it is too small to be an area.   Then remember
what areas are/were .. they were originally working groups, which outgrew
themselves and split into parts - the parts then reforming as areas.   That is,
an area is what happens when a working group gets too big.   Since, as you
correctly point out, this working group has not become too big, it isn't
tackling so many different issues, even thinking of it as an area is starting
out down the wrong path.

  | Proposal components
  | -------------------
  | Procedural issues are a task of the General Area of the IETF.
  | The IETF Chair will act as AD for this area, and perform the usual 
  | functions of process management for the process-making process.

That's a restatement of the status quo, no problem there.

  | There will no longer be a special IETF process list; instead, issues of 
  | interest to the community will be raised on the general IETF list.
  | This list will be used for pre-charter discussion of new items, as well as 
  | general process issues.

That's a terrible idea however, for lots of reasons.  Aside from the IETF
list being must better to avoid than any other list in the IETF, it is
directly counter productive to actually getting anything done.

  | When items of a significant nature are to be considered, working groups 
  | will be chartered as needed.

Aside from Dave Crocker's point - the delay - this also has the hidden
pre-condition "and the IESG thinks the item is a good thing".   If the
IESG doesn't like the idea, no WG will happen (probably not even the first
BOF on the formation of the WG, let alone the currently apparently mandatory
2nd BOF at the next IETF to formulate a charter).

A big attraction of the current setup is that it allows the poisson WG
to undertake work that it decides it ought to do, and once finished that
is WG product, which is much harder to kill.

The individual submission, and 4 week last call is never going to work for
anything that relates (in any significant way) to the IETF process - as you
point out, may of the issues are contentious, and result in opposition.
That's going to mean that there will always be objections at the last call
stage to any individual submission, which will always be enough for the IESG
to decide that there is no consensus for the doc, and relegate the thing to
the bin.  Occasionally prehaps instead propose a WG to discuss the matter.
Simply leaving poisson around where it could have been discussed from day
one avoids all of that delay, and also allows us to avoid the illusion (even
if no more than that) that the only things the IESG allows the IETF to
discuss are the matters it approves of.

  | Proposal discussion
  | -------------------
  | The existence of formalized, short-term working groups may help with the 
  | problem of "WG rot" that has characterized the POISSON effort.

The only real rot in poisson is that it isn't being allowed to do any work.
It isn't like some other WGs have been where camps form, and issues proposed
by one camp are immediately attacked by another, regardless of merit.

  | The increased focus may also help with the problem that POISSON has had 
  | with meeting at IETFs: when it is scheduled opposite other meetings, there 
  | will always be participants who have no possibility of attending; in 
  | particular, most of the IESG will be busy in other meetings.
  | More focused WGs will not need so much attention.

Not true at all.   There's only a need to attend a poisson meeting if it is
to discuss something of interest to the person considering attending.  If the
issue is of importance, then attendance will be desirable (or required)
regardless of the name of the working group.   What this might do, if
multiple groups get formed in parallel is allow the times when the issues
are to be discussed to be more plainly defined - by having separate discussions
in separate slots the timetabling can be more obvious (and the scheduling
can be optimised for those who want to attend).   The same could be done
for poisson WG meetings of course (if one ever happens again) - there can
easily be multiple slots scheduled, with a particular issue set to be
discussed in each slot.

Of course, there's always the other insidious possibility, that were
multiple process issue groups formed, they could deliberately be scheduled
against each other, to prevent people from attending both.  Keeping just
a single WG avoids even the possibility of this happening, and increases
the overall appearance of appropriatness.

  | Not having a special "process" list is one of the more uncertain aspects of 
  | this proposal.
  | The advantages of using the general IETF list are:
  | - A great number of relevant people are already present on this list

and lots of others have already decided that the list is a wasteland and
avoid it.

  | - It is better linked into the community than a process-only list is likely 
  | to be

That's true ... so sending announcements of issues of concern to the general
ietf list (or even ietf-announce which is probably a better idea) when they're
being discussed on a specific process oriented list (like poised) would be
a good idea - inform the community when something is being discussed, so those
interested in just that particlar issue, but not process issues in general,
can subscribe to the list until discussion dies down, then leave again.

That would have been a better approach here, make this proposal on the
poised list, and announce it on ietf-announce for anyone interested to
know it was happening.

Actually moving meaningful discussion onto the IETF list is not a sane thing
to want to do - if it were possible, it would be better to close down that
list.   Of course, if the underlying proposal is to stifle community driven
progress (or protest) then perhaps it is exactly what should be done.

  | The disadvantage is that all participants will have to read process-related 
  | discussions whether they are interested or not.

Yes.   And tolerate meaningless messages from those having a boring day
who aren't really interested, but just want to see their name in the From:
header of a message...

  | There is a very real danger that documents that are too small to require a 
  | working group will get inadequate review.

Yes.

  | This can be ameliorated by:
  | - discussing the documents on the IETF list

which won't help.

  | - using 4-week Last Calls, with pointers to appropriate mailing lists

the point of a 4-week last call is to make sure everyone gets a reasonable
chance to object to documents that haven't received much review - ie: to make
it as easy as possible to kill all the nonsense.   It doesn't help actually
get almost anything done (just occasionally something which is so obviously
the right thing to do can get written by an individual and through the
process quicker this way than forming a meaningless WG, aside from that
the 4 week last call is just a way to kill stuff).

  | - the ADs requesting independent review of documents

That can happen wherever it comes from.

  | The General AD will monitor all 3 relevant lists, and make a decision on 
  | the proposal no earlier than October 19.

Hmm ... an individual proposal, with 1 week "last call" ...   That's an
interesting concept.

What we should be doing is asking poisson to actually do some work, instead
of just continually telling it not to do anything.   One obvious "some work"
would be to consider possible mechanisms for handling IETF process issues,
whether the current method is adequate ("running code" and all that), or
whether it ought to be updated somehow, and if so, how.   Your proposal could
then be input into that discussion, instead of an ultimatum.

Kill this idea.

kre

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 16:15:06 +0700

| Proposal components
  | -------------------

  | Proposal discussion
  | -------------------

Yes.

which won't help.

Kill this idea.

kre

---

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 11:05:19 -0400 (EDT)

At 10:19 AM 10/12/2001, James M Galvin wrote:

    >...I am expecting the IESG to streamline

    ...the question is why

On a practical level, you and I are in agreement.

It occurred to me after reading Robert's note (which I'll respond to
separately), is that on the one hand this proposal doesn't change the
process that much.  Consider that if an issue comes up it is discussed
on a mailing list.  It matters to me which mailing list (poised or
ietf), but let's set that aside for a moment.

If there is consensus there's an issue the topic still needs approval
from the IESG.  This proposal makes that step obvious, since it proposes
we "create" a new working group.  What you may not realize is that that
step has always been true, it's just that the working group chairs
interacted directly with the AD and IESG to establish the goal and agree
to take on the work item.  Then an appropriate announcement was made on
the poised mailing list.

The term streamlining was an attempt by me to characterize the current
process and observe that all the "overhead" is already present.  What
this proposal does is to ensure our administrative process (Secretariat
tracking goals, etc.) is included.

It is my opinion this proposal does not change how things are actually
working, it just makes it clear to everyone what is working and how.

On the other hand I'll concede that when you formalize a process that
has been mostly working without the formalization, there's always the
risk that the process will falter, or otherwise not function as
optimally as it did.  We'll just have to wait and see.

    Given that we are considering a rather specific category of
    (ongoing) topics, then forcing them on to the IETF list is likely to
    have unfortunate side-effects on the IETF list.

Your question above works in both directions, but then I'm sure you know
that.  The general ietf mailing list is always the default place to ask
anything.  If there's a more appropriate forum a person is redirected.

The question I ask is why have two lists that I can take anything to?
Now I'm sure you're going to try and tell me that only process questions
go to poised and everything else goes to the ietf list.  But I'll ask
again why?  If the discussions are specific and they come and go, why do
we need a separate forum?

If something is that important that it is going to survive and become a
working group then it will get its own mailing list and move on.
Otherwise why not let the community as a whole reject the idea on the
ietf list?

And for those "unfortunate side-effects", we already have the
ietf+censored mailing list.

Jim

-- 
--
James M. Galvin <[email-masked]>
co-Chair of POISSON but speaking for myself

---

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 11:20:08 -0400 (EDT)

On Sat, 13 Oct 2001, Robert Elz wrote:

Robert, it has never worked this way while I've been Chair.  Neither
POISSON nor any working group gets to do what it wants to do when it
wants to do it.  All topics have always needed IESG approval.  It's just
that with POISSON (at least while I've been Chair) the approval was just
handled by the Chairs on behalf of the working group.

The only substantial difference I see in this proposal compared to how
things work is the suggestion to "create" a working group for each
issue.  Operationally it is the way it has always been (at least for me)
so all this proposal does is make that step obvious to the community.

I don't consider having one open, general, mailing list an issue versus
having two (poised and ietf).  When there's a working group task it will
have its own list.  Otherwise, why does it matter whether discussion of
topics come and go on the ietf list or the poised list?

Jim

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 09:01:15 -0700

At 08:20 AM 10/13/2001, James M Galvin wrote:
>All topics have always needed IESG approval.  It's just

James,

Please review the recent process that took place when a working group chose 
to censor a posting and to direct all complaints to poisson.

Although it was incorrect to direct the complaints to the working group, a 
spontaneous and productive dialogue took place about the censorship.

There was no IESG involvement or approval of the topic.

>having two (poised and ietf).

it is an issue because one of them is not "general".  poisson is specific 
to IETF formalities.  ietf is general.  the difference is significant.

d/

----------

---

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 12:47:55 -0400 (EDT)

On Sat, 13 Oct 2001, Dave Crocker wrote:

    At 08:20 AM 10/13/2001, James M Galvin wrote:

    >All topics have always needed IESG approval.  It's just that with
    >POISSON (at least while I've been Chair) the approval was just
    
    Please review the recent process that took place when a working
    group chose to censor a posting and to direct all complaints to
    poisson.
    
    Although it was incorrect to direct the complaints to the working
    group, a spontaneous and productive dialogue took place about the
    censorship.

Dave, there is a difference between an open forum for open discussion of
a topic and a topic being an issue to be addressed by a working group
that will produce an outcome that will be documented in some formal
way.  It is topics of the latter type that require IESG approval.
Surely we agree on that point?

The topic you mention took place on poised.  So what?  And I ask that
question in a formal context.

I'm not saying it wasn't useful or productive to talk about it, but it
was not (let me emphasize *not*) a working group action nor a task
delegated to the working group for review and closure.  The fact that
discussion trailed off accomplished what?  And I ask again in a formal
context.  It tells me that the group of people involved in the
discussion and others on the mailing list agreed on the point.  Everyone
else in the IETF community missed it.

I fail to see why that discussion could not have taken place on the ietf
mailing list.  Your assertion of a distinction between an IETF formality
versus a general topic is both interesting and rational and even
significant, but like all distinctions it is subjective and there's
always a gray area.

I'm choosing to eliminate consideration of any distinction.  Your
mileage may vary.

Jim

---

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 16:09:48 -0400 (EDT)

On Sat, 13 Oct 2001, Keith Moore wrote:
    
    > Neither POISSON nor any working group gets to do what it wants to do 
    > when it wants to do it.  All topics have always needed IESG approval.
    
    while this is true, neither Poisson or its predecessors has ever been 
    quite like any other working group.  in my experience IESG has felt
    considerable pressure to follow the direction of Poisson, and some
    reluctance to object to Poisson discussing a particular topic.

The issue is not whether POISSON discusses any particular topic but what
is the result (actions after consensus) of that discussion, regardless
of where it took place.

Assuming that's what you meant, you seem to be suggesting that because a
discussion took place nominally within the venue of a working group,
that gives it some greater standing than if the same discussion took
place on the general IETF mailing list.  I disagree.  I think it is the
discussion itself that matters not its source.

In my experience with POISSON the transition of a topic from discussion
to a working group task occurs as a result of one of two things.  Either
someone (usually one of the co-Chairs) steps up to the AD and asks for
approval for the task or the IESG/AD hands over a task for the working
group.  Frankly I don't see that changing whether or not there is a long
standing working group or a long standing mailing list.

    furthermore there's an inhernet problem with IESG demanding that it have
    tight reign on a WG that specifies the process that IESG must
    follow.

This issue is only interesting to the extent that you believe the IESG
does not already control POISSON.  From my perspective the IESG has
always controlled POISSON, although I concede I never really thought
about the possibility that the IESG imagined this huge 20 foot
clue-by-four behind my back whenever I asked about taking on a task.

I'm not convinced there's an issue here but your mileage may vary.

    It appears that we need better mechanisms for quickly dealing with
    each of two conditions:
    
    1. process problems which are not addressed in our current documents

    2. alleged violations of process on the part of those who are
       running things.
    
    both of these mechanisms need to have clear and publically visible ways
    of raising the issue, and inviting public comment where appropriate.

Personally I'm in favor of the IESG doing its best to do what is
needed at the moment its needed.  If it needs further review after that
then we do that, through a working group or whatever.  Isn't this part
of the reason why we have the IESG?

I have no particular opinion on our appeals process, having no direct
experience with it.  I'm not inclined to participate in changing
something I don't think is broken, but I'm certainly open to being
convinced that something is broken.

I'm still of the opinion that the general ietf mailing list is a clear
and publically visible way to raise and discuss, inviting public comment
as needed, any such issues.  I do not (yet?) understand why the poised
list is special in this regard.

Jim

---

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 21:52:27 -0400 (EDT)

> is the result (actions after consensus) of that discussion, regardless
    
    The issues are far broader than that.  We are talking about dismantling
    poisson and about what might replace it in its absence.  

POISSON is a working group and the proposal is to shut it down, just as
POISED and POISED95 existed and were shutdown after a time.  It will be
replaced with another (probably more than one) working group as needed.

I don't share your concern.  Working groups coming and going is how
things work.  I don't understand why shutting down this group is a
"dismantling" and creating a new one is going to be a problem.

Perhaps you're concerned about whether or not a new group will ever come
into existence?  I suppose that's a risk but I'm not inclined to take
any action with respect to that particular risk unless it's problem.

As far as what will exist while POISSON is gone and before another group
comes along, I don't see much change myself.  The "public sounding
board" of the poised list is being explicitly replaced by the ietf list
so where's the loss?  Discussions won't take place in the venue of a
working group, per se, but I still do not understand why this is an
issue.  It doesn't change the process as far as how POISSON worked from
my point of view, speaking as co-Chair of POISSON.

    Whether chartered for that purpose or not, poisson served as a public
    sounding board for problems with our processes.  The number of problems
    that were aired in this way illustrates a need for better means of 
    resolving these problems.

Perhaps we really do need a better means of resolving such problems, but
what is happening here is status quo as far as I can tell.  We're using
what is available to us: shut down this working group and creating
another, while keeping a public sounding board.

    several IESG members were indeed sensitive to the awkwardness of refusing 
    to allow the poisson WG to make recommendations about process that IESG 
    doesn't like.

This proposal neither fixes nor worsens this issue.  There's still an
open forum for discussing issues and there is still a means of bringing
such issues to the IESG to create a working group.

Where's the issue?

    > does not already control POISSON.  
    
    Clearly it has not controlled discussion on poisson, ...  However,
    one might conclude that pulling the plug on poisson is an attempt to
    squelch such complaints.  I don't believe that, but I do believe
    that the complaints that we've seen on poisson are indicative of
    more general problems that need to be addressed.

And you're expecting it to control discussion on the ietf list?

And what plug is pulled?  A working group is shutting down and one will
come into existence to identify issues to be addressed.  We will then
create one or more new working groups to address those issues.  Bring
your problem list to that group.

In the meantime the proposal is careful to make sure the public sounding
board function of POISSON remains intact by moving it to the ietf list.

How does this problem change the way things are now?

    IESG is already spread too thin trying to do technical review and area
    management. and as for having IESG be critical path for appeals, in my 
    experience it's not very good at that - it's too busy (and therefore
    too slow) and it's almost inherently too biased.

Bring this issue forward to be discussed at the next working group.  I
do not understand why it is at all relevant to the shutting down of
POISSON.

    What I'm 
    saying is that we have problems which cannot be satisfactorily addressed 
    merely by telling people "bring this discussion to the IETF list".

How is this different than suggesting they are satisfactorily addressed
by bringing them to the poised list?  If it isn't then I don't see how
it is relevant to shutting down POISSON.  It might be an issue that
deserves attention but it's not worthy of continuing the life of
POISSON.

Jim

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 18:37:21 +0100 (BST)

> Working group chartering, and even mailing list setup, has quite a bit of

about thirty minutes in yahoo groups or somesuch to set up the list,
and to announce it to the world. Charter discussion can then be
thrashed out on that list with cc's as appropriate....

all you need is one person who cares sufficiently to do this.

L.

ooh, oooh, we don't talk about <insert topic> on poisson.

<[email-masked]>PGP<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/>

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 11:37:01 -0700 (PDT)

Harald,
	I am not sure that your statement of the problem and

> very long time to get consensus on even reasonably simple things.

	As you note, these symptoms match those of working groups that
have lived to long.  Many of them also match meta discussions or
process discussions in general (wide-ranging, inconclusive, not
terribly well informed, odious to those who wish to move from meta
discussion back to real work, difficult to get consensus).  Changing
the venue of those discussions seems unlikely to change their
character.  Certainly starting those discussions with the mailing list
most subject to topic wander and contention seems likely to have a
contrary effect; even if they are hustled onto a new mailing list
quickly the damage seems likely to have been done.

	I also wonder whether the parallel between process work and
the work of an area (as opposed to the work of a working group) is
really that close.  Fundamentally, engineering work and process work
aren't very similar.  Picking one engineering paradigm over another
may improve things marginally, but it may be better to go outside
that set of paradigms.

	One interesting possibility to consider would be modifying the
nomcom paradigm for this purpose.  Create a "proccom" that lives for,
say, two years, half of its members rotating off each year; give it an
IAB liason and an IESG liason.  Bound the numbers to something that
gives a reasonable representation but can come to consensus.  Unlike
the nomcom, make all its discussions on open mailing lists, and limit
its actions to one of three things: create/revise a document on
process; recommend to the General Area director that a new working
group be formed to create or revise a process document; solicit input
via the ietf-announce list on an issue, comment to occur on its list.
This avoids some of the "who watches the watchers" issues inherent in
the area proposal, builds on an existing social process that seems to
work, and might avoid the working group rot.

	In any case, I agree that a decision on this by October 19th
seems premature and that further discussion would benefit the community
more than delay would harm it.
			best regards,
				Ted Hardie

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 14:35:56 -0400

furthermore there's an inhernet problem with IESG demanding that it have
tight reign on a WG that specifies the process that IESG must follow.

I freely acknowledge that there are good reasons to close down any
working group that has existed for as long as poisson.  and yet I think
doing so creates a vacuum which cannot be filled entirely by the IETF
list and narrowly focused WGs.

It appears that we need better mechanisms for quickly dealing with each
of two conditions:

1. process problems which are not addressed in our current documents
2. alleged violations of process on the part of those who are running things.

the first problem is to handle process issues that need quick resolution
but which cannot wait until a newly formed WG has decided what to do.

the second problem is to address deficiencies in our appeals procedure,
which takes far too long to resolve issues, places a huge burden on an
already overworked IESG, and often places IESG in the awkward position
of having to pass judgement on the past activities of one of its members.

If we had better mechanisms for these in place I think it would fill
some of the needs that were partially met in the past by the poised list,
and could easily serve those needs better than the poised list was
able to do.

Keith

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 17:51:08 -0400

I sympathize with those who think that poisson is no longer terribly
effective, but I don't think that the mechanism proposed to serve in
its absence is sufficient.

> place on the general IETF mailing list.  I disagree.

That's rather an odd position.  First of all, IESG has a difficult time
ignoring the output of *any* chartered working group - even if it's
garbage (as happens once in awhile).  Poisson would not be an exception
to this rule even if it did produce garbage - not that I can recall an
instance of that.  Second, in my experience from having served on IESG,
several IESG members were indeed sensitive to the awkwardness of refusing
to allow the poisson WG to make recommendations about process that IESG
doesn't like.

> does not already control POISSON.

Clearly it has not controlled discussion on poisson, as several issues that
have been embarassing to IESG or its members have been aired there with no
evidence of censorship (in contrast to some working group discussions).
And this discussion has been useful for the community.  However, one might
conclude that pulling the plug on poisson is an attempt to squelch such
complaints.  I don't believe that, but I do believe that the complaints that
we've seen on poisson are indicative of more general problems that need to be
addressed.

IESG is already spread too thin trying to do technical review and area
management. and as for having IESG be critical path for appeals, in my
experience it's not very good at that - it's too busy (and therefore
too slow) and it's almost inherently too biased.  IESG might be okay
at handling disputes between WG management (someone not on IESG)
and a WG participant, but it is *really* taxed by trying to do a fair
job at handling disputes between IESG participants and other parties.
I don't doubt the intentions of the IESG members, but political realities
make it very difficult for any IESG member to admit that another IESG
member may have violated process.

> convinced that something is broken.

I've seen it from the inside.

> list is special in this regard.

It was special because at one time it had a charter to work on process
issues, and because it became the well-known forum for discussing such
issues.  I'm not saying that Poisson has to stay in place, or even that
the main IETF list is not a good place to discuss such issues.  What I'm
saying is that we have problems which cannot be satisfactorily addressed
merely by telling people "bring this discussion to the IETF list".

Keith

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 17:51:08 -0400

Keith

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 22:22:33 -0400

> replaced with another (probably more than one) working group as needed.

"It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything
as if it were a nail".

A poisson++ working group would probably be an adequate mechanism for
revising 2026 or working out details of a new process.  But I don't think
a working group is a good mechanism for airing gripes or getting quick
resolution to process problems.  The discusssion on the poisson  list
indicated that we have such problems, but that doesn't mean that either
poisson or the ietf list is a good way to address them.

> This proposal neither fixes nor worsens this issue.  

I disagree. I think poisson had more teeth, and was a better means of
reaching people who are sensitive to such concerns, than the IETF list.

> it is relevant to shutting down POISSON.  

The problem isn't simply with shutting down poisson; it's with shutting 
it down without taking concrete action to identify and solve the problems 
that were (perhaps poorly) being addressed by poisson.

Keith

---

From: grenville armitage <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 19:34:59 -0700

I'm still confused about the problem that will be solved by
shutting down POISSON.

cheers,
gja

James M Galvin wrote:
	[..]
> so where's the loss?

____________________________________________________________________
Grenville Armitage                http://members.home.net/garmitage/

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 10:18:47 +0700

Date:        Sat, 13 Oct 2001 11:20:08 -0400 (EDT)
    From:        James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  | Robert, it has never worked this way while I've been Chair.  Neither
  | POISSON nor any working group gets to do what it wants to do when it
  | wants to do it.  All topics have always needed IESG approval.

From where exactly do you draw this conclusion.   I have just reviewed
rfc2418 (bcp25), and I can find nothing that says that.  It certainly isn't
in 2026.

The IESG needs to agree to the charter, that's clear, and the AD needs to
agree to any milestone updates, etc - but for work that falls within the
charter, the WG decides just what it wants to do.

If you, and other WG chairs, are running to the ADs every time someone
raises  new topic, then no wonder the IESG are way over worked - it should
be for the WG chair to decide whether something is within the charter or
not - if it is, then fine, it gets discussed.  If not, the WG may decide to
disagree with the chair - and if required, ask the AD to replace the chair
(as can happen any time the WG doesn't like what the chair is doing).  If it
is agreed by the WG that the issue is currently outside its charter, then
the WG can rewrite its charter, and submit that to he IESG for approval.
That's where the IESG should get involved.

  | It's just that with POISSON (at least while I've been Chair) the approval
  | was just handled by the Chairs on behalf of the working group.

The poisson charter doesn't seem to have been revised in a long time, so
it doesn't seem to me that anything needed to have received IESG/AD approval.
(Aside: revising the charter might be a reasonable thing to do - my impression
has been that that's been deliberately avoided, precisely because of what I
mentioned in my last message - a desire to have the WG not start on anything 
new).

Of course, it is just fine, and completely proper, for the WG chair to
keep the AD informed as to what is happening in the WG (though the AD is
likely to be on the mailing list anyway...).  But that's a different issue.

So, what really constrains what the WG can do is what the charter says it
can do, and for poisson, that includes (as well as stuff that has been
done, but as the charter hasn't been revised, old stuff is still there) ...

  - Discuss an update of the Nominations Committee document RFC-2282, if
    and when the current NomCom has suggestions for changes.

  Furthermore, the POISSON WG will review documents that are related to
  the IETF standards process (but that will not be produced by the POISSON
  WG itself) when available. Such documents may include: [list omitted]

  Last but not least, Poisson will serve as a generic platform where the
  IAB and IESG can discuss policy questions if there is the need for
  consensus polling.

Anything that falls in any of those categories is valid for discussion
without anyone asking the IESG if it is to be allowed.   Eg: the ietf
list charter, and the code of conduct docs pretty clearly fit under the
2nd of those - if you asked for IESG approval before discussing them, then
there was no need.   Nor should there be, we need a way for people to
propose changes to the process in a way that they can be discussed, and
if the community agrees, proceeded with, without discussion being able to be
stifled by the IESG (or anyone else).   That's important to us remaining an
open body.

  | When there's a working group task it will have its own list.

If that's because a new WG has been formed, that's fine.  And if we wanted
to form a new WG to consider (for example) exactly (only) a revised 2026,
then that would be (or could be) exactly what should happen.

But for one WG, there has to be ONE mailing list that is the WG list.
Obviously there can be other lists established from time to time to move
out discussions, but there has to be one place which is where the whole
WG make their collective decisions.   Ie: if another list were to be created,
and reach some kind of consensus as to a doc to publish (or something) that
can't be considered as a WG position until it has been verified on the one
WG mail list.   That's the one that section 2.2 of 2418 says needs to exist.

"a mailing list", "the mailing list" (etc) (no mention there anywhere of
there being multiple mailing lists - and for very good reason).

  | Otherwise, why does it matter whether discussion of
  | topics come and go on the ietf list or the poised list?

Because the ietf list is the best list in the IETF to be unsubscribed from.
It very rarely has any content that anyone cares about, and very often has
lots of content which is of concern to almost no-one.   On the other hand
the poised list targets exactly the people who care about IETF process issues,
and doesn't bother all those who don't care very much, and mostly contains
only discussions relevant to IETF process issues - it isn't a painful list
to remain subscribed to at all.

kre

ps: you will note that I am moving this discussion back to he poised list
(the list of the poisson WG).   While involving the IETF community in general
in this discussion is a good thing, I think there's been plenty on the ietf
list now for anyone who reads it to know there's a debate in progress on
in the poisson WG as to its future.   On the other hand, to discuss the
future of a WG, any WG, in the absence of that group, is not at all the
proper thing to do.   Please keep future discussion on the poisson list
(whether or not you decide to copy it to the ietf list as well).

I have dropped the ietf-process list though - I think it is time to simply
kill that one.  It was a failure for its purpose.   And it continues to
insist that I subscribe to it using the address that's in the envelope
sender header (Return-Path) of messages I send if they're to avoid sitting
in a queue waiting for a moderator to approve them - which is completely
bogus ... there's no way I am ever going to subscribe my envelope sender
address to anything (that's for bounce mail only), and nor am I about to
change that when I send messages to that one insane list.

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 15:20:19 -0400

>charter, the WG decides just what it wants to do.

Robert,

        I don't think that has ever been the way IETF works.
Working Groups can't take up work outside their charter --
that is the entire point of having a charter.

Ran
[email-masked]

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 18:53:46 -0700

>that is the entire point of having a charter.

Ran,  perhaps you missed the part of Robert's text that you quoted that 
said "for work that falls within the charter"?

Robert's description certainly matches my own experience with the process 
of different working groups.

d/

----------

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 11:24:05 +0200

> reluctance to object to Poisson discussing a particular topic.

And that is just the problem, with Poisson being populated by a small subset
of active IETF participants and a number of people whose main interest is
in fact process issues. Despite the fact that process discussions might
appear to be a distraction on the main IETF list, it is only there that we
can get a feeling for what *everybody* thinks, rather than the rather
special subset susbcribed to Poisson.

  Brian

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 09:34:42 -0400

> in fact process issues. 

yes, but we have that problem with *every* working group whose decisions
affects those whose core interest is not that  group.  nat, midcom,
dhcp, dns* are all examples of efforts that have the power to change the 
basic services that  are used by other layers - and have a potentially adverse 
effect on the ability of the Internet to support existing or new applications.

at least Poisson doesn't have the ability to break IP.

again, I'm fine with shutting down poisson but I think we need to find
better ways to address some of the problems that poisson tried to address - 
and simply moving the discussion to the IETF list is not IMHO sufficient.

Keith

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 16:42:45 +0200

> effect on the ability of the Internet to support existing or new applications.

Agreed, but in theory at least the ADs, the IESG as a whole, and the IAB are
supposed to look out for that sort of thing (whether we succeed is another
question). That doesn't work for the process because those are exactly the same
people as have a vested interest in the process. That's why I think that
major process issues really deserve exposure on the IETF list, *including*
exposure to people who don't want to know. Of course details can be debated
in a WG, whether it's Poisson or an ad hoc group.

> at least Poisson doesn't have the ability to break IP.

wanna bet? :-)
> and simply moving the discussion to the IETF list is not IMHO sufficient.

No, and that wasn't Harald's proposal - as I read it, it was to take the
discussion to an ad hoc WG after exposing the issue on the main list.

  Brian

---

From: grenville armitage <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 08:58:34 -0700

Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> [...] as I read it, it was to take the

How is that different from exposing an issue on the 'main list'
and then telling people to subscribe-to/jump-to poisson for
continued discussion?

What's to stop these ad hoc WGs from ending being populated only
by people interested in process discussions anyway? Seems like
we'll be back to the purported problem with poisson, but with more
mailing list creation/removal overhead.

cheers,
gja

---

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 13:34:57 -0400 (EDT)

On Sun, 14 Oct 2001, Robert Elz wrote:

    

    If you, and other WG chairs, are running to the ADs every time someone
    raises  new topic, then no wonder the IESG are way over worked - it should
    be for the WG chair to decide whether something is within the charter or
    not - if it is, then fine, it gets discussed.

That is certainly one interpretation of what I said.  Let me provide a
less cynical interpretation and try to be more clear about what I meant.

The poised mailing list has always served a dual function: it is the
mailing list for the POISSON working group and an open forum for
discussing process issues.  The POISSON working group has in its charter
to address process issues.

My interpretation of that charter (which I'll boldly proclaim is a
shared interpretation by the General AD and my co-Chair) is that when an
issue is discussed that clearly falls within the purview of POISSON we
still need approval to promote that issue to a work item of the working
group.  We have worked together with the IESG to decide if the issue is
to be addressed.

You see, it is not within the purview of POISSON to decide by itself,
without approval from the IESG, that any process related document is
fair game to be opened, reviewed, and revised whenever POISSON decides
it should be done.  I can not imagine where you got any expectation at
all that that was how things worked.  I can not think of a single analog
of such a procedure in any organization anywhere.  That is not to say
that organizations to not have a way to revise their processes, but
there are checks and balances.  The decision does not come from one side
of the issue.

In principle this is precisely the process of updating the charter to
indicate the actual work item.  Admittedly the co-chairs of POISSON have
not been good at keeping the charter precisely up-to-date.  (But then we
are hardly exception as far as this is concerned. :-)

Whenever it has been decided that the working group will not move
forward with a particular issue this has always been noted on the
mailing list.  Nothing -- to the best of my recollection -- that has
ever come up on the poised mailing list has ever been ignored.

At no time was discussion ever cut off on a relevant issue.  Taking on
an issue as a work item has been cut-off.  From my perspective and in my
experience this is due process.

    Anything that falls in any of those categories is valid for discussion
    without anyone asking the IESG if it is to be allowed.

Let's be clear about what's on the table.  Discussion has *never* been
stifled on relevant issues, until it has been decided that it is not a
POISSON work item.  A POISSON work item is different than a poised
mailing list discussion.  Please make a note of that.

You are free to interpret the POISSON charter has being especially
open-ended.  I'm simply going to point out that it has not worked that
way, as described above (speaking as co-Chair of POISSON).

Jim

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 19:33:41 -0400

> > basic services that  are used by other layers - and have a potentially
> > adverse effect on the ability of the Internet to support existing or new
> > applications.
> 
> question). That doesn't work for the process because those are exactly the
> same people as have a vested interest in the process. 

good point.
 
> discussion to an ad hoc WG after exposing the issue on the main list.

well, I guess I have a couple of items I'd like to see on that WG's 
charter. 

Keith

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 19:40:15 -0400

> it should be done.

perhaps not.  but when the consensus of Poisson clearly indicated that
some work needed to be done, the IESG was likely to feel considerable
pressure to cooperate...if nothing else, to avoid the Kobe syndrome.

Keith

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 17:12:11 -0700

> fair game to be opened, reviewed, and revised whenever POISSON decides

this statement seems unnecessarily polarizing.  the problem seems far less
deciding that something needs a new consensus than finding a constructive
way to develop them.  much of this thread is a case in point.  though some
has been thought-provoking, even my highly-filtered view does not paint a
picture of a mature decision process.

would you want your baby in this bathwater?  clearly not, as you seem to
be among the crew trying to remove the bathroom.  i would rather focus on
how we can make the bathwater sufficiently cleaner that one might be less
fearful of entrusting babies to it.  i doubt my procmail approach scales
well.  and i think that scaling is the core of our problem.  poisson-like
things used to work when we were a fraction of our current size.

given that email is one of the worst ways yet invented to build consensus
and comfort, and that we still need an open consensus building process,
what can we do to make it more scalable?

randy

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 10:29:45 +0200

> mailing list creation/removal overhead.

Well, that is an experimental question. My feeling is that if a specific
process question comes up - let's say, a proposal to increase IAB
membership to 99 seats, to create a silly example - we could have a
much more focussed discussion in the "iab99" WG with a very limited
charter than has proved possible in recent years in Poisson. And really
that is the only change that Harald has proposed, when you drill down.

   Brian

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 22:25:50 +0700

Date:        Mon, 15 Oct 2001 13:34:57 -0400 (EDT)
    From:        James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  | My interpretation of that charter (which I'll boldly proclaim is a
  | shared interpretation by the General AD and my co-Chair) is that when an
  | issue is discussed that clearly falls within the purview of POISSON we
  | still need approval to promote that issue to a work item of the working
  | group.

From where exactly do you draw that conclusion.   Nothing in the IETF
processes I have ever read, or heard of, suggests anything like that.

  | You see, it is not within the purview of POISSON to decide by itself,
  | without approval from the IESG, that any process related document is
  | fair game to be opened, reviewed, and revised whenever POISSON decides
  | it should be done.  I can not imagine where you got any expectation at
  | all that that was how things worked.

We seem to differ as to how the IETF should function - perhaps along the
lines John K suggested in his reply to me.   I don't view the IETF as
a bunch of volunteers all clustered round waiting to do the bidding of
the IESG, whatever that might be.   IMO, the "members" of the IETF are
in control - the IESG are just the management we appoint to help things
run smoothly (or smoother anyway).   It is the IETF that decides what
it wants to do, and when - not the IESG (though of course, the IESG
given its insights into everything that is happening, can often be the
first to identify areas that need work)

  | I can not think of a single analog
  | of such a procedure in any organization anywhere.

You mean you can't think of any organisation where the members can
decide that something should be altered?   Not, for example, any
random company where some number of the members can demand a special
general meeting and put items on the agenda to be discussed?  None
at all???

Certainly the way the IETF works, in all regards, is different to
most other organisations - not having any real defined members as
such makes a difference.

  | That is not to say
  | that organizations to not have a way to revise their processes, but
  | there are checks and balances.  The decision does not come from one side
  | of the issue.

poisson is one side???   What is the other side supposed to be?  Ie:
who is the enemy?   poisson is supposed to be (at least representative of)
all of us - just the same as any other WG.  Anyone can be a part of it,
and all viewpoints can be expressed.

Checks and balances, sure, we have those - first we have to get WG
consensus (rough consensus) on some outcome, then we need to get the
rest of the IETF (via last call) to agree to it, and even then, the
procedures allow the IESG to veto it (subject to appeal of course).
There are plenty of checks and balances already - we don't need to
be under anyone's thumb before deciding to do some work .. just getting
consensus (rough) in the WG that we should undertake something is a
big enough barrier as it is.

  | In principle this is precisely the process of updating the charter to
  | indicate the actual work item.

It would be, if the charter needed to be updated.   For very good reason,
poisson's charter is very broad as it is...

  | At no time was discussion ever cut off on a relevant issue.  Taking on
  | an issue as a work item has been cut-off.  From my perspective and in my
  | experience this is due process.

You will note that I haven't been complaining about process issues wrt
poisson (or not until this attempt to kill it).   I have no complains
about how the group has appeared to have been run at least - not now, and
I haven't in the past.   If this background IESG approval seeking has been
happening, it can't have materially affected anything, or I suspect that
you would have heard the complaints before now.   And if that's true, then
I wonder whether it was ever necessary in the first place.

kre

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 11:28:17 -0400

> what can we do to make it more scalable?

that's a very good question.  

It seems to me that we need to find a way to impose some sort of discipline 
on the conversations - in particular, to clearly separate 

- recognition and identification of a problem
- determining whether consensus exists for a problem statement
- proposals for a solution
- feedback/comment/critique on such proposals
- determining whether consensus exists for such proposals

separation is probably needed both in message labelling and time. in 
other words, it's not enough if each message is clearly labeled according
to its purpose (though this would help immensely); it's also necessary 
to discourage indefinite discussion in any of these phases, and to have
clear transitions from one phase to another.

and yet all of this must be done without censorship or the appearance of
censorship.  

I suspect email could work as a mechanism except that existing user agents 
do not support for the additional content tagging and user interaction 
that would be needed.  so it would probably need to be prototyped
using a web interface, perhaps with a receive-only email channel
for passive monitoring and archiving.

we would do well to experiment with other means of conducting WG 
dialogue. I see no process problems with doing so provided that 
such experiments are carefully constructed to ensure visibility 
and openness and approved in advance by IESG.  a first step might 
be to assess the effectiveness of mechanisms that are already 
employed by some WGs.

Keith

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 11:37:24 -0400

> charter than has proved possible in recent years in Poisson.

Problem is, process questions are not always that specific.  If for 
example there were a growing sense that WGs take too long, that IESG
approves too many broken documents, and that too many WGs are having 
an adverse effect on the Internet architecture - the solution to
this problem might somehow involve IETF process, but we would not be
likely to find a solution by chartering a WG that is centered around 
someone's draft proposal.

Keith

---

From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 11:21:18 -0500

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Robert Elz" <[email-masked]>
> most other organisations - not having any real defined members as

If you recall, the notion that the IETF has no members changed when
ICANN arrived on the scene. At the IETF meeting in Sweden, when,
ICANN was recruiting followers for the PSO, the IETF, W3C and
ETSI were considered equals. Apparently, the IETF people objected
and noted that ETSI has a small number of members. Someone else
apparently noted that the IETF has no members, and is therefore
smaller than ETSI. In order to become part of ICANN, the IETF had
to quickly talk out of the other side of its mouth and claim to have
thousands of members.

Jim Fleming
http://www.IN-ADDR.INFO

---

From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 11:50:16 -0500

----- Original Message -----
From: "Keith Moore" <[email-masked]>
To: "Brian E Carpenter" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "grenville armitage" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2001 10:37 AM
Subject: Re: Proposal for a revised procedure-making process for the IETF

> someone's draft proposal.

What is the "Internet Architecture" ?

Is there a picture somewhere ?

The "toy" IPv4 Internet is a sewer.
IPv8 is designed to be a swamp to cover the sewer.
IPv16 is the "high-ground"....

...here are some links...

Jim Fleming
http://www.unir.com
Mars 128n 128e
http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12213.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12223.html

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 09:42:18 -0700 (PDT)

> clear transitions from one phase to another.

This has been tried.  Terry Winograd and Fernando Flores set up a company
that tried to apply the language-action model to organizational messaging,
using categories that split the messages into the "action" associated
with the message.  Many of their categories match the ones you have above.

One of my old college roommates, Bud Vieira, did some work on the
system with Flores and discovered that when users self-labelled their
messages, almost everything got labelled as a comment, whatever
category language-action theory might have assigned.  Interestingly,
this was true whether you were dealing with a flat organization or
a highly structured one, though for apparently different reasons.

It is possible, of course, to develop an organizational culture which
agrees upon and uses specific categories for specific types of
communication, but this a barrier to entry and likely to have some
interesting mismatches between naive interpretation of labels
and their organizational meaning.

				regards,
					Ted Hardie

---

From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 11:21:18 -0500

----- Original Message ----- 

Jim Fleming
http://www.IN-ADDR.INFO

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 10:38:23 -0700 (PDT)

> to quickly talk out of the other side of its mouth and claim to have

Reread what Robert said -- there's a big difference between not having a well
defined "is a member of" test and not having any members. Any contributor to
the IETF is effectively a member of it.

				Ned

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 14:21:53 -0400

> category language-action theory might have assigned.  

It's interesting that authors don't want to think as carefully about
the labelling for a message as the message itself. 

What I had in mind for a prototype was:

- a user interface via which messages are submitted, which reminds the 
  user what phase the discussion is currently in prior to the message
  being submitted, and which insists that the user specify the phase
  of the message being submitted.  ("comment" is not a phase)

  it would accept messages that are out-of-phase but the presentation 
  of messages to readers would be separated by phase.  presumably 
  the current phase of the discussion would get the most attention.

- a means by which a moderator/chair could reclassify already posted
  messages or threads as out-of-phase. for visibility, the message 
  would be tagged as "reclassified".

All of this would be experimental, of course, so we shouldn't
expect any of this to work on the first try.  But we're going
to need to allow WGs to do some experimentation if we want to 
find better ways to do our work over the net.

Keith

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 11:32:44 -0700

At 10:38 AM 2001-10-16, [email-masked] wrote:
>defined "is a member of" test and not having any members.

  If subscribed to a WG or other mailing list of the IETF,
  then is member of the IETF.

(Yes, by this definition, lurkers are members.  Most
 organizations have many members who are lurkers.)

>Any contributor to the IETF is effectively a member of it.

Only a subset of the membership contribute to the IETF.

---

From: Einar Stefferud <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 13:05:00 -0700

The problem in this exchange is that you all are
using the wrong metric for measuring "participation".

The correct metric is "participants", and the IETF has vastly more 
than the other standards bodies, and is vastly more open to adding 
new participants over time.

And, quite frankly speaking, ICANN has no members either, aside from 
those 19 that are Members of the Board of Directors, including the 
squatters;-)...
Their membership is exceeded by the number oof staff members;-)...

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 14:48:29 -0700 (PDT)

> the labelling for a message as the message itself. 

Actually, if I understand his results correctly, it was more that the
users of the system did not want to be overtly "demanding",
"requesting", "accepting","declining"; they wanted to avoid being
pinned down so that they could cloak demands, requests, etc. as
comments.  This was more normal social behavior in that context, in
his reading of the results.

Now that I see it in more detail, your proposal is actually different
from the Winograd & Flores work; since you focus on the phase of the
discussion rather than character of the individual message, you may
not have the same problem with the political behavior of the
participants.  I believe, however, you will still have the same
problems with the system as a barrier to participation.
			regards,
				Ted Hardie

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 11:45:10 +0200

> someone's draft proposal.

True, but if someone writes a problem statement we could charter
a SLOWBROKEN WG to find a solution.

   Brian

---

From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 10:52:28 -0500

According to the IETF web site, http://www.ietf.org
"The IETF is an organized activity of the Internet Society"

Is the Internet Society a U.S. company or based in Switzerland ?

Jim Fleming
http://www.in-addr.info
3:219 INFO

----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Baker" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 9:47 AM
Subject: Re: The IETF has no members ?

> removing the spam list...
>
> At 03:38 AM 10/17/2001, [email-masked] wrote:
> >Any contributor to
> In any practical sense, you're probably correct, but as I understand it
> (IANAL), not in a legal sense. The sense that an organization has
> "members", which is the context raised, that has to be defined somewhere,
> and we have no such formal definition.
>