Re: [Gendispatch] WG Review: General Area Dispatch (gendispatch)
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Thu, 10 October 2019 05:21 UTC
Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA275120043; Wed, 9 Oct 2019 22:21:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cDXQvdkZIEEI; Wed, 9 Oct 2019 22:21:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 514FA120044; Wed, 9 Oct 2019 22:21:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1iIQtH-000HxA-TV; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 01:21:31 -0400
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2019 01:21:23 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
cc: gendispatch@ietf.org, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <246B8C1AAC97E005097CAF12@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJL0-=Jn0Wk8GR+xrGcZ6Vyv4QO+p=LgkKt5srdVu+Zh_g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <156953786511.31837.12069537821662045851.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <8A15D8AF-6B1A-42A0-85CE-DF861E73C1C2@nostrum.com> <CALaySJL0-=Jn0Wk8GR+xrGcZ6Vyv4QO+p=LgkKt5srdVu+Zh_g@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/uTSZFG0fQhLi-7f1iu-OmCLEEcQ>
Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] WG Review: General Area Dispatch (gendispatch)
X-BeenThere: gendispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: General Area Dispatch <gendispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gendispatch>, <mailto:gendispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gendispatch/>
List-Post: <mailto:gendispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gendispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch>, <mailto:gendispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2019 05:21:37 -0000
--On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 21:18 +0200 Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> wrote: >... >> Another difference is that while DISPATCH is mainly >> interesting to people in the ART Area, we can expect >> GENDISPATCH to draw from all areas. We try not to let >> DISPATCH conflict with other ART meetings. How do you >> deconflict GENDISPATCH without it turning into another plenary >> or a standing BoF? > > This is always an issue with Gen Area BoFs and WGs, and this > will be no different. I think the bottom line is that > there'll be a set of people who will want to participate > regularly, and we'll try to accommodate that... there'll be > people who want to parachute in for certain topics, and we'll > do what we can to accommodate that, realizing that it's > harder... and there'll be a lot of people who won't want to > have anything to do with it until a proposal is at a stage > where they strongly support it or object to it, and there's > little we can do to accommodate that. It is what it is, but > it's no different than if we just charter Gen Area WGs without > a DISPATCH-like start. No? Barry, I see one risk with this that I think should be considered and watched for even if the IESG decides to move forward. The IETF has a rather long and difficult history, with only a few exceptions since the POISED and POISSON WGs, of there being two types of process change proposals. One type is enthusiastically welcomed by the IESG. A large fraction of proposals of that type originated within the IESG (or occasionally the IAB) and were pushed at the community rather than being in any sense bottom-up. That is not necessarily bad -- your work (and Thomas's and Harald's) on IANA Considerations is, IMO, one of the more positive examples. Others are not. They, and especially ones that members of the IESG see as a threat to their authority or the way they do things and sometimes as adding work, have tended to vanish. Often they vanish without a trace, with no opportunity for the community to take positions on Last Call, sometimes inconsistent with WG consensus, and usually with very little accountability for individual ADs or the IESG in general. I (and some others) routinely cite NEWTRK as an example but there are others. In many of them, the IESG has insisted that a working group is needed and then refused to create such a working group (or has created one with a charter so narrow or broad as to make progress impossible) as a means of killing the effort. In others, ADs have managed to erect sufficient obstacles and induce enough delays that people simply lose interest. Sometimes that is A Good Thing; often it is a control mechanism that keep particular people or points of view in power and prevent the IETF from evolving and making progress. So, the question about this proposed WG for me is whether it will make those tendencies better and thereby prevent good ideas from getting lost or suppressed. If so, I think it is a great idea. But I also see the risk of its being used to bury work that it out of favor with "the leadership" and doing so in a way that preserves the status quo except when the IESG wishes things to be different) and enables even less transparency and accountability than we have seen in the past. I'd like to see ideas and controls about how to prevent the latter or how to detect it and push back if it starts to occur, and I don't see those in the current draft specification. best, john
- [Gendispatch] WG Review: General Area Dispatch (g… The IESG
- Re: [Gendispatch] WG Review: General Area Dispatc… Alissa Cooper
- Re: [Gendispatch] WG Review: General Area Dispatc… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [Gendispatch] WG Review: General Area Dispatc… Sean Turner
- Re: [Gendispatch] WG Review: General Area Dispatc… Sean Turner
- Re: [Gendispatch] WG Review: General Area Dispatc… Alissa Cooper
- Re: [Gendispatch] WG Review: General Area Dispatc… Alissa Cooper
- Re: [Gendispatch] WG Review: General Area Dispatc… Roni Even (A)
- Re: [Gendispatch] WG Review: General Area Dispatc… Alissa Cooper
- Re: [Gendispatch] WG Review: General Area Dispatc… Roni Even (A)
- Re: [Gendispatch] WG Review: General Area Dispatc… Ben Campbell
- Re: [Gendispatch] WG Review: General Area Dispatc… Barry Leiba
- Re: [Gendispatch] WG Review: General Area Dispatc… Ben Campbell
- Re: [Gendispatch] WG Review: General Area Dispatc… Mark Nottingham
- Re: [Gendispatch] WG Review: General Area Dispatc… Ben Campbell
- Re: [Gendispatch] WG Review: General Area Dispatc… John C Klensin
- Re: [Gendispatch] WG Review: General Area Dispatc… Ben Campbell
- Re: [Gendispatch] WG Review: General Area Dispatc… Ben Campbell
- Re: [Gendispatch] WG Review: General Area Dispatc… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Gendispatch] WG Review: General Area Dispatc… Alissa Cooper
- Re: [Gendispatch] WG Review: General Area Dispatc… Alissa Cooper
- Re: [Gendispatch] WG Review: General Area Dispatc… John C Klensin
- Re: [Gendispatch] WG Review: General Area Dispatc… Ben Campbell
- Re: [Gendispatch] WG Review: General Area Dispatc… Ben Campbell
- Re: [Gendispatch] WG Review: General Area Dispatc… Jari Arkko
- Re: [Gendispatch] WG Review: General Area Dispatc… Patrick McManus
- Re: [Gendispatch] WG Review: General Area Dispatc… Michael Richardson
- Re: [Gendispatch] WG Review: General Area Dispatc… Alissa Cooper
- Re: [Gendispatch] WG Review: General Area Dispatc… Spencer Dawkins at IETF