Subject: Re: The requirements cycle (Re: WG review: Layer 2 Virtual....)

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 23:34:58 +0200

Dave,

you are talking about actions that could be taken by all the actors in the 
system. I was talking about the actions that the WG could take on its own.

--On 10. juli 2003 16:24 +0200 Dave Crocker <[email-masked]> wrote:

> HTA> even if a WG feels abused by the IESG, or its AD, that's no excuse
> for a WG not fighting back - in this case, by rapidly removing the
> IESG's apparent excuses for delay.
>
> In other words, you appear to be saying that a working group should be
> expected to perform any action imposed on them, no matter how
> unreasonable. Perhaps that is not what you meant, but it is the meaning
> I take from your sentence.

OK, let abstract out the case, and let us go through this theoretical 
example in more detail.

- A writer group is seeking to have a document published.
- A gatekeeper group is imposing a requirement that must be fulfilled
  before the document can be published.
- The working group feels that this requirement is unreasonable.

Now, assume that both parties are acting in good faith, both parties are 
reasonably competent at their work, and that both parties are interested in 
seeing the document published.

Since we're assuming good faith, rationality and competence on both sides, 
we must assume the gatekeeper group had what it thought was a rational 
reason to impose the requirement. It would be irrational for the gatekeeper 
group to drop the requirement without being convinced that its reason was 
wrong or insufficient.

I see a number of rational actions from the writer group, which need not be 
exclusive:

A - Try to convince the gatekeeper group to drop the requirement.
B - Try to fulfil the requirement with the minimum amount of energy.
C - Take their business elsewhere (give up).

In an ideal world, there would be dialogue enough between the writer group 
and the gatekeeper group that one would convince the other about the 
reasonableness of the requirement. In the real world, this doesn't always 
happen.

What I was saying is that I don't see the group's action that seems to have 
happened here (procrastination in fulfilling the requirement, after being 
convinced that convincing the gatekeeper group to drop it won't work) as 
rational. Understandable, but not rational.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 15:26:28 +0200

Harald,

HTA> you are talking about actions that could be taken by all the actors in the
HTA> system. I was talking about the actions that the WG could take on its own.

THe original discussion was about problems with IESG-related actions.
Your introduction of a derivative thread about actions the WG might take
was cast as there being "no excuse" for their not taking those actions.

Since the focus had been on problems due to IESG-related barriers that
were viewed as frankly inappropriate, directing the focus over to the WG
is a distraction.  (Note that, alas, it has at least had that effect.)

HTA> - A gatekeeper group is imposing a requirement that must be fulfilled
HTA>   before the document can be published.
HTA> - The working group feels that this requirement is unreasonable.

HTA> Now, assume that both parties are acting in good faith, both parties are
HTA> reasonably competent at their work, and that both parties are interested in
HTA> seeing the document published.

Sorry, no.

With respect to the situation that I have twice described very
carefully, the imposed requirements are not reasonable and not
"competent".

Let's remember that competence relates to specific skill-sets. The
skill-set at issue here is one of working group oversight. The problems
being discussed are/were about difficulties in IESG
administration/oversight of WGs.

There needs to be equivalent focus about problems with WG chair
management, WG participant actions, and even IETF-wide participation in
review, etc. of working group.

But we will not make progress if any attempt to focus on a specific
component of this system results in defensiveness or a redirection of
focus.

So, sorry, but no we cannot assert that the AD in the hypothetical was
acting competently, with respect to WG management.  Please review the
description of the circumstances that I described.  I repeat:  they were
carefully cast, and they DO occur in the IETF.

Therefore, the rest of your latest response to me pertains to some
independent sub-thread of all this.  I have no comment on it, because I
would rather get some discussion of one thread at a time, rather than
jumping around.

d/
--
 Dave Crocker <mailto:[email-masked]>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
 Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>