IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Gendispatch] Re: [procon] dispatching draft-carpenter-rfc7221bis

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 26 March 2025 08:52 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: gendispatch@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: gendispatch@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6227A127F50E; Wed, 26 Mar 2025 01:52:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sandelman.ca
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BqGcFEGJmI4W; Wed, 26 Mar 2025 01:52:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [IPv6:2a01:7e00:e000:2bb::1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256)) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D5E34127F503; Wed, 26 Mar 2025 01:52:33 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: relay.sandelman.ca; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; secure) header.d=sandelman.ca header.i=@sandelman.ca header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=dyas header.b=H+MMsW1j; dkim-atps=neutral
Received: from dyas.sandelman.ca (unknown [80.149.170.8]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E53DA1F4B2; Wed, 26 Mar 2025 08:52:29 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by dyas.sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id AFFBEA1A40; Wed, 26 Mar 2025 15:53:36 +0700 (+07)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=sandelman.ca; s=dyas; t=1742979216; bh=BvlnHOxJniXI5iQGfDe6BMzxfe/4rLwyjqIWhHB1S+s=; h=From:To:Reply-To:Subject:In-reply-to:References:Date:From; b=H+MMsW1jV5CHmGzKNUb9sBKlmERG3uVVaaNNsQ+ncyVs9z+euj4KYLGj6qBRoWW5t Smc4fbqbxbDCTXU5WuunMnz4OWqlYweafGSN3+i9KqgzfiuLJKKiBOat9VcZsvZqge WFtjgWqlaJW2p0zIp7XYktuGzmpWPf/chC1QO8aNWB7InHsmgSONbZa1DLQMWA9dBt D/myQRPf94oKPN3/fjFEVHfx7O1fICKEVAiAWoVpLjACmVnXJ4ZLHjKCcmCVLjW22j cVx9vqyGRE8NECj/GEcnkOzcJkPY48EnOd90t6H5USFiLAOtxtM6sSSMr8Hoq9DpHo Rt++rBm1hlSNw==
Received: from dyas (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dyas.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD333A007E; Wed, 26 Mar 2025 15:53:36 +0700 (+07)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, "gendispatch@ietf.org" <gendispatch@ietf.org>, "procon@ietf.org" <procon@ietf.org>
In-reply-to: <1B003401-4E91-4087-BA13-3CBBE130C6AC@tzi.org>
References: <1212677.1742733409@dyas> <IA1PR17MB6421A795D03F694B92CBF9EDCDA52@IA1PR17MB6421.namprd17.prod.outlook.com> <E86893FA-05FC-48E9-9100-99FFC98C7C80@tzi.org> <1308918.1742898219@dyas> <1B003401-4E91-4087-BA13-3CBBE130C6AC@tzi.org>
Comments: In-reply-to Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> message dated "Tue, 25 Mar 2025 13:01:24 +0100."
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2025 15:53:36 +0700
Message-ID: <1378215.1742979216@dyas>
Message-ID-Hash: UQG6AZ3J6L5XBMDMC74X2QH7PGONHX5R
X-Message-ID-Hash: UQG6AZ3J6L5XBMDMC74X2QH7PGONHX5R
X-MailFrom: mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Reply-To: procon@ietf.org
Subject: [Gendispatch] Re: [procon] dispatching draft-carpenter-rfc7221bis
List-Id: General Area Dispatch <gendispatch.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/952jHH1Pd3Fb4njvRRX4EDJwkKA>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gendispatch>
List-Help: <mailto:gendispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:gendispatch-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:gendispatch@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gendispatch-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gendispatch-leave@ietf.org>

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
    >> None of that section is new.  Maybe you dislike the wording, but the question
    >> is: do you agree that there is a problem?

    > As so often, there may be a problem, but that would not be with the
    > process, but with the lack of *applying* the process (including the
    > choice of the author team).

When it comes to adopting documents, the WG chairs are 100% responsible.
It's fiat.  THIS PROCESS IS NOT WELL KNOWN.
Instead, we have a poorly understand (by WG chairs) cargo culting of asking
people if they support a document.  It does not produce good results, and
somehoe turns into voting.
I've even had chairs ask why I didn't +1 my own document.
(In 2020 several people were surprised that the above was NOT a documented process)

    > I generally knee-jerk when someone argues for replacing a process when
    > the real problem is that the process isn’t even used (or known!) in the
    > first place.

We are very much in agreement here.

The choices going forward are:
1) leave it to chairs fiat, but make it clearer that a WG consensus call is
   only one process, and doing it with +1 votes is *not* rough consensus.
2) taking the cargo-culted process, and writing it down and not leaving it up
   to the chairs.
3) something else


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-                      *I*LIKE*TRAINS*

v2.43.4 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status