Re: [hrpc] draft-irtf-hrpc-political - current determination regarding RG last call.

Thanks for this Avri.

May I suggest that the RG appoints a document shepherd that can help advise on the (progress of the) content of the document? 

The shepherd could identify on which points there is consensus, where it needs more work, and which points are contentious (which might mean they need more work, or that they should be described in the document as points of contention). 

That could probably help the RG iterate in a constructive and structured fashion, as described in RFC 4858:

  The shepherd must keep the document moving forward, communicating
   about it with parties who review and comment on it.  The shepherd
   must obtain the working group's consensus for any substantive
   proposed changes.  The shepherd is the leader for the document and
   for the working group, and maintains a critical and technical
   perspective.  In summary, the Document Shepherd continues to care for
   a shepherded document during its post-WG lifetime just as he or she
   has done while responsible for the document in the working group.

Best,

Niels

On 10/14/19 4:44 PM, avri@doria.org wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Now that the conversation has paused, I believe it is time to say
> something about the draft and its readiness for RG last call.  In order
> not to bury the lead, my conclusion is that at this time is that it is 
> not yet ready.  I will explain
> 
> First I want to say that I think this is an important piece of work and
> one that needs to be done right.  I think the most value can be achieved
> by having a document that does justice to the various sides of this
> important question, and one that points the way to have further
> discussions about the implications of the question in a balanced, 
> informed and considered manner.
> 
> I think the document does a decent job of expressing one side of the
> argument, though there are places in that discussion that are shy on
> references and on arguments that logically show why that view should be
> considered the right argument. Nonetheless the basics of that argument
> are well established. What I think is missing is an equivalent basis for
> opposing views. I think the various detailed discussions of disagreement
> support that view.  Opposing views, while in some cases mentioned and
> even described briefly, are not given the same depth of analysis that is
> given to the predominant view.
> 
> In terms of the HRPC RG's view on the document, the group of respondents
> was split. There are several who think the document is ready to go.
> There are also as many who think it is not. In my opinion, we have not
> yet reached rough consensus for publication.
> 
> I appreciate the speed with which Niels put out versions with the
> specific fixes he believed necessary to satisfy the arguments, but feel
> they sometimes missed the point about the document not being a balanced
> discussion of the issues. I also think we saw that those with a
> different point of view did not agree with the updated presentation.
> 
> Regarding the discussion of whether we need RG consensus to publish in
> the IRSG stream: as I have said several times, I believe that in
> becoming a RG draft, a private draft becomes subjected to the RG rough
> consensus process.  It is not that all the issues in the doc need to
> have rough consensus agreement, but the document itself needs to be
> something the RG supports publishing in the IRSG track. This is the same
> process we followed with RFC8280. It is not as if the IRSG RFC track is
> the only opportunity people have to publish their ideas or their
> advocacy. I believe the IRSG RFC track serves as a way for a RGs to
> publish documents that are supported by the RG's research and
> discussions. This is something I try to make clear to people when they
> request that a private draft become a RG draft, I ask whether people
> wanted the draft to become subject to RG rough consensus because that is
> a criterion I use in moving the document forward.
> 
> As I said above, I think this is an important piece of work and think
> that this RG should be able to produce a well researched and broad
> document on this subject; one which has often been an elephant in the
> room in technical discussions. At this point, I think it is only part
> way there.
> 
> My current thought is that I would like to see work on this draft
> continue. I think it might be good to find an additional editor or two
> to work alongside Niels on taking the next steps on the doc. I am
> interested in hearing from volunteers for this task.  I would also like
> to devote some time in Singapore to a discussion of what content is
> needed to complete the draft and to develop a plan for its completion.
> The discussion brought up many issues.  I am still working on trying to
> abstract a brief view of the issues that people brought up and plan on
> presenting that as part of the discussion. There were also a few
> suggestions of what the document still needed, which I would like to
> explore in open discussion.
> 
> I appreciate the amount of thought and effort people put into responding
> to my call for feedback. I also appreciate the amount of Niels' work
> that has gone into the draft to date.
> 
> thanks
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> hrpc mailing list
> hrpc@irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc
> 

-- 
Niels ten Oever
Researcher and PhD Candidate
DATACTIVE Research Group
University of Amsterdam

PGP fingerprint	   2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488  
                   643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3