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

[farzaneh badii <[e-mail]>]

I think Avri has accurately captured the discussion.

Having a couple of co-editors would be good.

Best


Farzaneh


On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 10:45 AM <[e-mail]> 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
> [e-mail]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc
>