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

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

Hi Avri,

First, I appreciate the level of effort that Niels is putting into this work.  I want to take issue with two points you made:

> On 14 Oct 2019, at 16:44, [e-mail] wrote:
> 
> 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.

To me this was never about “sides”.  To begin with there may be a great many sides.

Regardless, once there is a clear and bounded research question, reasonable argumentation and references, and a bounded conclusion, regardless of whether I agree with the work, I am comfortable with it being published.  Some might want to publish opposing argument.  So long as we as a group are open to those publications as well, why would it be necessary to hold up this work?

Having written an economic and policy paper with people who had opposite views[1]*, I don’t recommend the practice.  One gets into all sorts of arguments about methodology and reference quality etc with one’s co-authors, and for what?  What is the value of such a work over two separate works?

Which brings me to my next point:

> 
> 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.

Yes, you have said this.  I do not recall you saying why you would take this approach.  Can we please have a discussion as to whether this is the best way forward?  What is the value of rough consensus in this case?  Or perhaps I should ask that question differently: on what do you seek rough consensus: the positions in the document or whether it is simply in good enough form to be sent up to the IRSG?  The latter is a whole lot easier to get to.

Eliot

*I did it once and not again because of the arguments between authors.

[1] http://people.csail.mit.edu/wlehr/Lehr-Papers_files/Lehr%20Lear%20Vest%20TPRC08%20Internet%20Address%20Running%20on%20Empty.pdf <http://people.csail.mit.edu/wlehr/Lehr-Papers_files/Lehr%20Lear%20Vest%20TPRC08%20Internet%20Address%20Running%20on%20Empty.pdf>