Re: [Gendispatch] New Version Notification - draft-eggert-bcp45bis-04.txt

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

I am in favor of publishing this document. Those who would prefer some more
global change to the SAA process should instead propose those changes in
the form of a draft.

-Ekr


On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 12:25 AM Lars Eggert <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On 2021-9-17, at 13:31, Lloyd W <lloyd.wood=[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> > As a latecomer to this thread, and as someone with rather more recent
> > experience of the SAAs than most... section 4 says:
> >
> >    A sergeant-at-arms (SAA) is an officer appointed by a deliberative
> >    body to keep order during its meetings [SAA-WIKIPEDIA].  SAAs for the
> >    IETF discussion list are appointed by the IETF Chair
> >
> > The contradiction here is obvious. An SAA is appointed by a deliberative
> body,
> > during its meetings, and the IETF Chair is not a deliberative body.
>
> I added this quote from Wikipedia, because SAA is a pretty US/UK-centric
> term, and I received feedback that it is confusing to participants from
> other regions when they first encounter it.
>
> I'd be happy to point to a different explanatory definition. I'd also be
> happy to remove it again.
>
> > An SAA
> > should be appointed by the deliberative body itself, which is to say,
> the list
> > itself, by the list members.
>
> Maybe it should, but BCP45 didn't set it up this way and this draft is not
> intending to change that.
>
> > Furthermore, this draft is written by the current IETF Chair. So, this
> can
> > be seen as shoring up and reaffirming the Chair's power.
>
> If you compare this document to BCP45, you will find that it actually
> significantly reduces the power of the IETF Chair. First, BCP45 allows for
> the Chair to directly impose posting restrictions. This hasn't been the
> practice for quite a number of years, and this document hence removes that
> option, placing it entirely at the disposition of the SAAs. Second, it
> clarifies that the appeals process applies here, which BCP45 left somewhat
> unclear.
>
> > I strongly object to this. Documenting or redocumenting an existing
> process
> > doesn't make that process right, and this violates the basic concept of
> the
> > SAA as described.
>
> If you would like to propose changes to the BCP45 SAA process, please do
> so. Objecting to this document isn't going to result in such changes,
> because BCP45 would remain unchanged.
>
> Thanks,
> Lars
>
>
> >
> > Lloyd Wood
> > [e-mail]
> >
> >> On 15 Sep 2021, at 18:48, Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton=
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> >>
> >> 
> >> I’ve not seen any further comments on this thread since Saturday.
> >>
> >> My interpretation is that Lars and Barry are supportive of this change.
> >>
> >> Brian, my interpretation is that Lar’s proposed text is acceptable to
> you.  Please clarify if this is not the case.
> >>
> >> I would like to wait until Friday to see if there are any further
> comments on Lar’s proposed text.  If there are no strong objections then on
> Friday I’ll ask Lars to post a -05 with the change and I’ll kick off IETF
> LC.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Rob
> >>
> >>
> >> From: Brian Carpenter <[e-mail]>
> >> Sent: 11 September 2021 08:38
> >> To: Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>
> >> Cc: Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>; GENDISPATCH List <
> [e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> >> Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] New Version Notification -
> draft-eggert-bcp45bis-04.txt
> >>
> >> Hi Lars,
> >> Since 2026 doesn't mention conflict of interest, that's probably the
> procedure. Not entirely satisfactory, but we could live with it.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>     Brian Carpenter
> >>     (via tiny screen & keyboard)
> >>
> >> On Sat, 11 Sep 2021, 17:37 Lars Eggert, <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >> Hi Brian,
> >>
> >> Is that an option in your reading of 2026? They way I understand it is
> that if the AD is conflicted, the entire IESG is the next step?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Lars
> >>
> >> --
> >> Sent from a mobile device; please excuse typos.
> >>
> >> > On Sep 10, 2021, at 23:20, Brian E Carpenter <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On 10-Sep-21 23:01, Barry Leiba wrote:
> >> >> That works for me, Lars, and thanks.
> >> >>
> >> >> I see Brian's point about Gen AD instead of IETF Chair, but I don't
> >> >> agree with it here, because the SAAs are explicitly appointed by the
> >> >> IETF Chair, not related to the Gen Area.
> >> >
> >> > You're correct. There's still the corner case where the IETF Chair is
> >> > conflicted - for example, if the message(s) objected to by the SAAs
> >> > made allegations about the IETF Chair themself. Probably another AD
> >> > should be the first recourse in that case.
> >> >
> >> >   Brian
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Barry
> >> >>
> >> >>> On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 3:11 AM Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Hi,
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I have a proposed change to use the normal RFC2026 appeals process
> in https://github.com/larseggert/bcp45bis/pull/7/files. This is the
> current change:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> --- a/draft-eggert-bcp45bis.md
> >> >>> +++ b/draft-eggert-bcp45bis.md
> >> >>> @@ -192,8 +192,8 @@ manner.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Because an SAA serves at the discretion of the IETF Chair - even if
> the IETF
> >> >>> Chair is not otherwise involved in the operation of the SAA team -
> any SAA
> >> >>> -decision could be appealed to the IAB. The IAB shall then review
> the situation
> >> >>> -and attempt to resolve it in a manner of its own choosing.
> >> >>> +decision can be appealed to the IETF Chair, per {{!RFC2026}}.
> Decisions by the
> >> >>> +IETF Chair can be appealed to the IESG as whole, again per
> {{!RFC2026}}.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> # Security Considerations
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Please let me know if this expresses what is desired?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Thanks,
> >> >>> Lars
> >> >>>
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Gendispatch mailing list
> >> > [e-mail]
> >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch
> >>
> >> --
> >> Gendispatch mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch
> > --
> > Gendispatch mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch
>
> --
> Gendispatch mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch
>