Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] DNSOP Document Adoption Poll (June 2022)

Benno Overeinder <benno@NLnetLabs.nl> Thu, 07 July 2022 16:30 UTC

Return-Path: <benno@NLnetLabs.nl>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA7D8C14CF08; Thu, 7 Jul 2022 09:30:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.106
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.106 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=nlnetlabs.nl
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dVPJWxZEWQ-J; Thu, 7 Jul 2022 09:30:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outbound.soverin.net (outbound.soverin.net [IPv6:2a10:de80:1:4091:b9e9:2215:0:1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4206DC13CF82; Thu, 7 Jul 2022 09:29:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.soverin.net (c04smtp-lb01.int.sover.in [10.10.4.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by outbound.soverin.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4Lf20s5bCkzL9; Thu, 7 Jul 2022 16:29:01 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtp.soverin.net (smtp.soverin.net [10.10.4.99]) by soverin.net
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nlnetlabs.nl; s=soverin; t=1657211341; bh=HLDu93n91nwUiDVtQCsyNK4lqs168hNQnEZiORT28VI=; h=Date:To:References:From:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:From; b=VMGG9Ix43NxMKIeklkC5GYRXA7o1l8zIhhdSdfXxqWJQ3DmUlgMUiZKVgjcpLFun9 Ek04ac4jdwznT5ARZSBdxu68qRlk1GHsL7cz6pe96u2L3C2l0nBMRF/SghcXy0k9BU r+wdQbQVCiat05HYuvaYJDxng1wJJa/4ZwmCBU081pEeBI88IUGE49tlpJXZcvI94V XFV0duERULcxA7D4MC4YojcwIhQkKxDu560G1aYsUhpSJ0965jAEo9nRf6l4x7kr2A /zZk6yTsddNgFioAuHFervplSZHJ3MepC5byvry8KrdD4oVK6x+PR3TgovgSirgnf9 tIP/VZLf8bXQg==
Message-ID: <96262aca-32ce-322e-bba0-389e0dd15c7f@NLnetLabs.nl>
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2022 18:28:59 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Language: en-GB
To: DNSOP Working Group <dnsop@ietf.org>
References: <CADyWQ+FGSdnW8NbBT72vGzNL9Bdr5DrM357K4X+iAkhS+aZs0A@mail.gmail.com> <3b8026db-74a6-ff96-8329-07a16087c46d@NLnetLabs.nl> <86C99A90-E74D-4E76-9A56-D7EB5EB54093@icann.org> <15bbb88a-017a-bde9-7622-5996e2335e9e@NLnetLabs.nl> <e702dda0-4395-7555-8678-d513c9bcfef8@nthpermutation.com>
From: Benno Overeinder <benno@NLnetLabs.nl>
Cc: DNSOP Chairs <dnsop-chairs@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <e702dda0-4395-7555-8678-d513c9bcfef8@nthpermutation.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/2L3OWsmUqkbcvU7kzQ0Q4EfiF2c>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] DNSOP Document Adoption Poll (June 2022)
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2022 16:30:30 -0000

Hi Mike,

On 07/07/2022 17:21, Michael StJohns wrote:
> On 7/7/2022 11:10 AM, Benno Overeinder wrote:
>> It helps us and the WG itself to prioritise WG activities and start a 
>> regular WG call for adoption of a number of documents.  We will share 
>> the results of the poll with the WG and how to make an initial 
>> selection of documents that will be included in the WG call for 
>> adoption process.  We currently have 6 drafts for which the authors 
>> have asked WG adoption, but that is too much new work for the WG to 
>> work on.
>>
>> Any feedback on improving the process to prioritise work in the WG is 
>> welcome.
> 
> All of that is a good and just reason to send out calls for adoption. 
> But the point of the previous messages was that the poll was not the way 
> to do that.  Basically, making a poll choice without providing context 
> and an opportunity for discussion a) lacks transparency (in that when 
> the chairs make a decision, the WG has no basis on which to evaluate 
> that decision), b) lacks nuance (in that the choices provided do not 
> cover some shadings of what to do - e.g., not ready for consideration), 
> c) lacks WG participation (a discussion about a document gets us to a 
> better result than blind voting).

I see the points you are making but as we mentioned we will be sharing 
and discussing the results of the poll, so for transparency of the 
decision making process and WG participation in this it will be on the 
WG mailing list.  For your concerns wrt. the nuance there should be room 
during this mailing list discussion.

If I read your concerns correctly, instead of 6 WG call for adoptions in 
a short period (or in one go) we will have a phased WG call for 
adoptions in the next month with 3 candidates and when the WG completes 
current existing work, another batch of 2, 3 or 4 WG calls for adoption 
will be issued.  And an outcome of the call for adoption can be a 
yes/no/not ready for consideration/..., as usual.

Conducting a survey (2 times now) has worked well over the past 1.5 
years to prioritise finishing existing work and starting new work.  Two 
years ago we (as a WG) discussed how to manage the workload of the WG 
and running a poll seemed to be one of the mechanisms to help with that.

> The fact that the chairs did not respond to the original messages is 
> also a bit problematic.

Apologies for not responding to the original messages, but was in no way 
intended to ignore them.

Regards,

-- Benno