[Gendispatch] Re: I-D Action: draft-carpenter-gendispatch-org-proc-docs-00.txt

Jay Daley <exec-director@ietf.org> Tue, 24 September 2024 13:03 UTC

Return-Path: <jay@staff.ietf.org>
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 B2DF0C20C8C4 for <gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Sep 2024 06:03:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.906
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.906 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=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=staff-ietf-org.20230601.gappssmtp.com
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 Oz6BCUXJhRVI for <gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Sep 2024 06:03:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm1-x32b.google.com (mail-wm1-x32b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::32b]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 59FD8C1F58BD for <gendispatch@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Sep 2024 06:03:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm1-x32b.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-42cb7a2e4d6so51220665e9.0 for <gendispatch@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Sep 2024 06:03:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=staff-ietf-org.20230601.gappssmtp.com; s=20230601; t=1727183029; x=1727787829; darn=ietf.org; h=references:to:cc:in-reply-to:date:subject:mime-version:message-id :from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=/sfhNAXrBFdi7CI2ZoQI/SmcesBMgwMmMVHdWzPH3wE=; b=pVUQGn7XLDl6Pukfe5VRqSM3F+MuncsXsUID+VjSL/IPcuP04NM0VrJ4oSCNtF3GQu GwKKSXSRD6Nd+qzdd2v4Z7ZYkJKJ6iCQ+2p9+C9/ke7iPU/fKHri2yYpL5Yp5LaLIjdQ yTz+hfKiW3K3FvqCevpt5hQijmSFRcMVfURaklu3A4m5uRxhZTbVPyGxsraAGO8oZhW6 reCqMM0QGG7jyIVf2bu2gV6kffJjwzL0w2hkk3pG+0k1pU4MIw3djTR42iR38T2bw+bV hrY166Eh1aq93V/BwKjVQsUgMogjPv0yBZjEMJkk74gVV2H7ScGxlc63aY+g8pD07NfD /7Qw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1727183029; x=1727787829; h=references:to:cc:in-reply-to:date:subject:mime-version:message-id :from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=/sfhNAXrBFdi7CI2ZoQI/SmcesBMgwMmMVHdWzPH3wE=; b=hBOfAAmGxjayrr77Ts5p3vvRfDIhDHrmEYc7GQyFJHzbLxYlZ1zUoBIoZ6BetfeQha uRL7QTElVwOZPQCtwMrTsGfPynod8xsMkBKdlIw6QFL2gVYiSxJ749poKrufAdS6EKo7 +lkR3Hjc17IVmJFVTNxbiqH46Rb5h4F41uMej/kfGt2/G52xJZjLXNrvx82c2QOEDO4p 8oziUOhNW7Nlxt7ZZw3O7byBS/lLs/BHj6TRGql5qoXu8gVXOracwyt4azCredv5o/f1 nz+JC3JEXU6bzUcUtv9SMR51L7nt6Teu4xCfdssvrNWkYKCNkbcV+DYLcN167m6XtEC/ e9Zw==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWwmAf14gyZd+vnKszNxN9nkOohRgYUmmRGqgb1AnAVjb+C0O0Q/9tCfW070pCQ9rb66Km50boAnkhd0Q==@ietf.org
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyqL22XIuFiGMRsa5Rt+eLo1MFo6Ksm5IUNSaubYt0Stwdbsxu/ aYK3HulRbK1QiIXj6SUKSyNdE7znMOjzmE2CV9ohkbFiuBdCl2kSrOLxP2jDYDlYJw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGK1RjPr976EzZCr0xqn5J/4wdy9SmAD7ZlEQUGBw2rkr9x07sLKBOdeSARjpc2RLEpjmbjpw==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:3b82:b0:42c:b80e:5e50 with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-42e7ab4073fmr112883865e9.0.1727183028566; Tue, 24 Sep 2024 06:03:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple ([92.27.125.209]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 5b1f17b1804b1-42e902b6804sm21650435e9.33.2024.09.24.06.03.47 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 24 Sep 2024 06:03:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jay Daley <exec-director@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <5F7DF4B7-F867-4257-A5D6-F51E66B7F606@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_3614173F-C760-4F6F-988E-6F4853582059"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3776.700.51\))
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2024 14:03:37 +0100
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMCKAFcEPg9+sOHDFN9d8K_t6Jn6b1zoBCFv058jKnXq7w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
References: <172714913950.1303095.258693123434634616@dt-datatracker-65695bf5bc-rgg8z> <a6729ae9-3dc9-4ea9-a89e-effd62f07c89@gmail.com> <1630744c-0be2-4e16-a863-65ac5c968952@lear.ch> <CA+9kkMCXtjcWkM+0Wer3BWL85MiZAxXg2pUzYGYLJug0gfFCJw@mail.gmail.com> <0FDB6E9E-BCDE-46D8-9E12-F324A4278745@ietf.org> <CA+9kkMCKAFcEPg9+sOHDFN9d8K_t6Jn6b1zoBCFv058jKnXq7w@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3776.700.51)
Message-ID-Hash: J3SIT45GMNUO4KKS46X2KPQNN7U2FVSL
X-Message-ID-Hash: J3SIT45GMNUO4KKS46X2KPQNN7U2FVSL
X-MailFrom: jay@staff.ietf.org
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
CC: Eliot Lear <lear@lear.ch>, gendispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [Gendispatch] Re: I-D Action: draft-carpenter-gendispatch-org-proc-docs-00.txt
List-Id: General Area Dispatch <gendispatch.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/xdit4YGU3Txf_gN8y1pnFviQpHs>
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>

Understood and I think we agree.  I read Eliot’s suggestion as the LLC being asked to produce consolidated text that someone else then took on as the basis of an I-D, not the LLC authoring the I-D.

Jay

> On 24 Sep 2024, at 13:57, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Jay,
> 
> It appears we disagree on this point.  From my perspective the scope assigned to the LLC in RFC 8711 pretty clearly puts decisions on how the standards track works out of scope; here's the language in the RFC as opposed to the web page:
> 
> The document does not propose any changes related to the standards process as currently conducted by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) and Internet Architecture Board (IAB) (see BCP 9 [RFC2026 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8711.html#RFC2026>] and BCP 39 [RFC2850 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8711.html#RFC2850>]). In addition, no changes are made to the appeals chain, the process for making and confirming IETF and IAB appointments (see BCP 10 [RFC8713 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8711.html#RFC8713>]), the technical work of the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) (see [RFC2014 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8711.html#RFC2014>]), or to ISOC's membership in or support of other 
> organizations.
> 
> I think having the LLC (qua LLC) be the author of a document that supersedes the current description of core standards processes is a change in scope of the work of the LLC.  None of that is to say that the professional authors in the LLC would not have that capability, but I believe it should not be dispatched to them as an LLC task.
> 
> regards,
> 
> Ted Hardie
> 
> 
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 8:49 AM Jay Daley <exec-director@ietf.org <mailto:exec-director@ietf.org>> wrote:
>> Hi Ted
>> 
>> > On 24 Sep 2024, at 13:36, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com <mailto:ted.ietf@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> > 
>> > Hi. Eliot,
>> > 
>> > On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 2:31 AM Eliot Lear <lear@lear.ch <mailto:lear@lear.ch>> wrote:
>> > <snip>
>> >     • We dispatch this to the LLC (assuming they are okay with that) to perform the consolidation, with the understanding that the goal is not to create or change any policy but to simply document it all in a way agreed.
>> > 
>> > 
>> > If you review https://www.ietf.org/administration/overview/ you will see that work like this is explicitly out of scope:
>> > 
>> > The IETF LLC has no role in the oversight or steering of the standards process as currently conducted by the IESG and IAB, the appeal chain, the confirming bodies for existing IETF and IAB appointments, the IRTF, or ISOC's memberships in other organizations.
>> > 
>> > At least as I recall it, that separation was a core part of developing the community consensus around the IETF LLC approach.  Dispatching documents that describe the standards process to them seems to me to be a non-starter as a result.  If you want to hire an editor, I think you have to do it outside the LLC itself.
>> 
>> LLC staff regularly act as professional authors, writing primarily website content relating to all aspects of the IETF, including the standards process.  Most of the time this is simply taking existing content and rewriting it in a more consistent, accessible and integrated (i.e. reducing several overlapping pages to one) form.  Whenever we do so, the content is checked by IESG members and other community members before publication.  
>> 
>> For examples, see my regular updates to the now closed tao-discuss list about reuse of Tao content https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tao-discuss/ and the authors site authors.ietf.org <http://authors.ietf.org/>.
>> 
>> Provided that is what would be asked of us, then I see no inconsistency with RFC 8711, which is where the role of the LLC is set.
>> 
>> cheers
>> Jay
>> 
>> > 
>> > regards,
>> > 
>> > Ted
>> > 
>> > 
>> >   -- 
>> > Gendispatch mailing list -- gendispatch@ietf.org <mailto:gendispatch@ietf.org>
>> > To unsubscribe send an email to gendispatch-leave@ietf.org <mailto:gendispatch-leave@ietf.org>
>> 
>> -- 
>> Jay Daley
>> IETF Executive Director
>> exec-director@ietf.org <mailto:exec-director@ietf.org>
>> 

-- 
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director
exec-director@ietf.org