Re: [apps-discuss] On "supporting the publication of this document" (was: Re: We have no lambs (was: Applicability Statements))

[SM <[e-mail]>]

Hi John,
At 07:20 12-05-2011, John C Klensin wrote:
>I think you may have missed my point, although the style I adopt
>in the IETF rarely results in my being accused of saying things
>to be politically correct.  :-)

I was commenting on the two different angles.  I should not have used 
"politically correct" as it is an incorrect description.

>The determination the IESG needs to make is multidimensional.
>There is no agreed-upon statement of the dimensions, but I would
>try the following as components.  They should require different
>levels of certainty at different maturity levels, e.g., for
>Proposed Standard, "no known technical defects" is supposed to
>be adequate while, for higher levels, there should be some
>conviction that no such defects exist, not merely that no one
>has noticed.

Agreed.

[snip]

>(4) Do enough people in the community care about this spec that
>the IETF should put its stamp of approval on it?
>
>A "I think this is ok and should be published" statement may be
>very useful for (4), especially for non-WG documents.   One
>important characteristic of (4) is that the IESG actually does
>have to count, even if the counting process doesn't correspond
>to normal arithmetic.  For (1)-(3) high-information-content
>technical arguments are important, especially if they take a
>"don't publish" or "don't publish without..." position.  And, at
>least in theory, there is no counting at all -- it doesn't make
>any difference if a particular technical position is stated by
>one person or by five (whether explicitly or by "+1"
>endorsement): the issue should be the contents of that position.

I'll say yes to the above without going into the details.  As a 
comment on the "+1", I'll refer to Ted Hardie's comment about "context" [1].

[snip]

>I think the only thing that is unusual about Pete's approach is
>that he is trying to be explicit about the criteria he is going
>to use to evaluate and weight comments.  I think that is A Good
>Thing, but I don't think the criteria he suggests are in any way
>new or unusual.

My comment was not about the criteria; it was more about posting a 
message about the thinking.  It is not always an easy decision for 
the individual making the determination.  Should the person be open 
about how he or she will make the decision?  There are two choices:

  (i)  Stick to text from BCPs when making public statements and not voicing
       out any thoughts that might be misconstrued as bias.

  (ii) Be candid about likes and dislikes while being able to overcome the
       dislikes to avoid being biased.

The first option leaves people to second guess what the person might 
decide.  It is the favored option and it leaves less room for people 
to object to the decision.  The second option is interesting; people 
can come up and say "excuse me, you may have overlooked the '+1' 
posted by person X who is not a well-known suspect.  Person X is 
working on this specification".

If the community prefers to have ADs who have made it through Swiss 
finishing school, it won't see statements of support such as the 
"Walled Garden Standard" [2].

Regards,
-sm

1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg02580.html
2. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg50789.html