Re: Issues around sponsoring individual documents

[John Leslie <[e-mail]>]

Lisa Dusseault <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Is an IS that defines a new protocol for the Standards Track fine in  
> general?

   I'd describe them as "necessary, rather than "fine".

> Is an IS that extends a standard protocol developed in a WG fine in  
> general?

   This falls a bit short of "fine". Such extensions deserve formal
review...

> Is an IS that obsoletes a standard protocol developed in a WG fine in  
> general?

   I doubt there's any other practical way. (These do seem to attract
enough review...)

> Do IS's suffer from less review?

   Yes.

> Is that a problem?

   Not necessarily.

> Whose responsibility is it to get sufficient review?

   Yours, I suppose... (That's why we pay you the big bucks, right?)

> Is it mostly well-connected individuals that can use the IS track,  
> knowing an AD to do the sponsoring?  Or mostly individuals with a lot  
> of time on their hands?

   A bit of both... The latter particularly need significant review.

> An IS can have a non-AD document shepherd.  Does encouraging that  
> improve the situation or make IS publishing even more dependent on  
> the author's connections?

   It certainly improves life for the AD...

> Should I limit time spent sponsoring IS's? [1]  IESG work plus IS  
> work could consume 30 hours a week, or 40, or 50...

   Yes.

   (Alas, we have rather a backlog of apparea work which seems to
have no way of proceeding except via ISs...)

> Assuming I limit the potentially endless amount of work devoted to  
> IS's, do I limit it algorithmically (e.g. first come first served),   
> as a matter of pure taste, or other?

   No algorithm can yield reasonable results. You have to "use your
judgment". ;^)

> How should I prioritize IS sponsoring work? Which documents get my  
> attention first?  [2]

   Clearly the updates to mainstream, high-usage RFCs are squeaking
petty loudly...

> When there's a question of consensus for an IS document, should I  
> just drop the document?

   Bad idea...

   This situation is exactly where we need WG-style process.

> Assuming I try to determine consensus how do I do so without an  
> official owning WG -- consensus calls to the IETF discuss list?   
> Choose a related list and hope people are paying attention?
> Do I need to ensure there's a quorum?

   You can always _try_ a consensus call an the apparea list...

   (TANSTAA quorum.)

> How would appeals against IS documents affect answers to these  
> issues?

   At all costs, please avoid considering suicide!

   (Obviously, appeals are a sign of some serious malfunction.)

> (Usually individual ADs take the first stab at handling  appeals,
> formal or informal, against WG chair decisions.  When  there's no
> WG chair involved with a doc, I guess the appeal would go  straight
> to the whole IESG...)

   I don't read our process documents that way. Even when your own
action is being appealed, an AD should make the first attempt at
resolution.

> Does sponsoring many IS documents give an AD, and the IESG as a  
> whole, too much power?

   Perhaps, but I think of it as rather too many headaches.

> Are we discouraging legitimate WGs by encouraging IS's?

   No. I believe WGs are being discouraged for other reasons.

> What other purposes do WG's serve besides simply publishing  
> documents, that are not met by IS's? [3]

- review
- polishing details
- discussion on a better targeted mailing list
- ability to schedule physical meetings if necessary
- etc...

> If we turned down ISs in Apps, would the proposed work die, go  
> elsewhere or ... ?  Would that be bad?

   Mostly go elsewhere, with "die" a close second. IMHO, it is bad
because solutions get delayed -- often until some half-assed idea
takes hold by IETF inaction.

--
John Leslie <[e-mail]>