Resent-Message-Id: <E1ZjR5f-00081Z-OB@frink.w3.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.0 \(3094\))
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
From: "Eliot Lear (elear)" <elear@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <459D9E26-84B2-423E-A721-8ED0C988A0AB@mnot.net>
Resent-From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2015 12:05:41 +0000
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>,
 Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Resent-Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 14:11:22 +0200
Message-Id: <1707395D-1166-4D29-8092-DAEC9C79FE15@cisco.com>
References: <9C939474-975C-4D12-8B78-E2A74264A9BD@mnot.net>
 <69B99EF5-364E-4BBA-A6AB-49543366EEE3@cisco.com>
 <34F87374-7033-4829-9F76-5415495BF3B0@mnot.net>
 <618B8FAA-2B75-49CD-8FB6-D5F9A6E055FD@cisco.com>
 <459D9E26-84B2-423E-A721-8ED0C988A0AB@mnot.net>
Resent-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Adjustments to our work mode - please read
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/1707395D-1166-4D29-8092-DAEC9C79FE15@cisco.com>
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list

Thank you for your apology.=20

To be brief, Mark, what I want to be able to continue to tell =
governments that we operate in a bottom up community driven manner where =
we use the same rough consensus approach to approve standards as well as =
processes, that our processes are well documented, and that everyone has =
an opportunity to participate.  Don't make that hard for those of us who =
do that by not documenting what you are doing.  The points I made were =
pretty much straights from OpenStand principles, amongst others.=20

You  don't even have to convert to 77 character ASCII since your mailer =
did that for you ;-).  Honestly if you put up that process on your =
GitHub home page I'd be satisfied (if it's there I can't find it).  =
Better to make clear through IETF mechanisms that people from other WGs =
are used to.=20

You raised an IPR issue. I think counsel already looked at least some =
aspects that, if memory serves, but that really isn't my department.  =
Check with the IAOC if you wish.=20

Eliot

> On Oct 5, 2015, at 10:30 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
>=20
>=20
>> On 6 Oct 2015, at 12:50 pm, Eliot Lear (elear) <elear@cisco.com> =
wrote:
>>=20
>> Yes, well. Please read the REST of that document.  It is speckled =
with references to how EMail should be used and in what circumstances. =
Want to vary from that?  Fine.  But document what you're doing.
>=20
> I have read it, Eliot, and we have documented it. You seem to be =
disputing the form that this documentation takes. As I've explained, I =
don't think it's appropriate to write this up as a draft YET -- we're =
just experimenting. Give it time.
>=20
>=20
>>>> Anyway, what I ask at this point is four things:
>>>>=20
>>>> 1.  The charter of the group should indicate the procedures being =
used.=20
>>>>=20
>>>> 2. Those procedures should be documented in a draft.
>>>=20
>>> Nothing in the IETF process that I can see requires such a level of =
bureaucracy. While I can see the point of doing so if this work mode =
"sticks" over time, requiring us to do so just to perform an experiment =
is busy work. =20
>>=20
>> Because sticking your email in a draft and pointing at it is so hard. =
  Come on.
>=20
> So, you're seriously causing a fuss because you want this formatted as =
77-column ASCII? Are you worried about IPR on the contribution policy? =
Come on.
>=20
>=20
>> Transparency requires that people be able to know what the rules are. =
Because you're using an additional communication path that is not =
documented elsewhere it's on you to ensure people aren't surprised and =
that people know when issues are going to be closed and what the =
resolution is.  That makes a result stronger. =20
>>=20
>> Pragmatically how do you expect someone coming into this wg from =
another wg or a new participant  to understand how things work?  And =
what if you change things further?  Shall Mark's Rules be a collection =
of emails that must be parsed and diffed?
>=20
> You're getting pretty far off base with the allegations here. It is =
documented, on our WG home page - <https://httpwg.github.io/>, currently =
linked as "How to Contribute - start here" (as well as from the =
navigation bar from every page on that site). We regularly show the home =
page link at our meetings, it's easily found by any search engine, and =
it's linked from our charter.
>=20
> If you think that's not sufficient, perhaps you could help us improve =
the quality of our documentation.
>=20
>=20
>>>> 4.   Finally, you have repeatedly and needlessly used derogatory =
language toward those who have worked hard for *this* organization. I =
think you owe that group an apology.
>>>=20
>>> You've lost me, Eliot. How have I done so? Have I offended *you*, or =
are you just concerned on behalf of others?
>>=20
>> I'd like to know who you think you're talking about when you use the =
term "professional" standards people,  juxtaposed against users and =
developers.    It sounds to me that you are referring to those who have =
done a lot of work in and for this organization-  as if they aren't =
developers or users or should have less voice in the process because =
they've been around.  Yes I'm in that class. It was wrong of you to put =
it in those terms.
>=20
> You're throwing around words like "wrong" quite freely, Eliot. I =
apologise if any offence was found, but know that none was intended, and =
frankly I think you're reaching pretty far to find it.
>=20
>=20
>> And as I wrote above that's fine. Just document what you're doing
>=20
> Already done. See above.
>=20
>=20
>> and give those using email notice when you are going to make a =
decision.  How hard can that be?
>=20
> Eliot, this isn't a big divergence from the past work mode of this =
group, when editors would often propose issue resolutions in drafts, =
we'd mark them provisionally closed, and then that would be confirmed =
once the draft is published, reopening if necessary to discuss. We did =
that for may issues in the BIS drafts, and some in HTTP/2, if =
recollection serves. This was with full knowledge of the WG and the ADs, =
and the quality of documentation for that was considerably worse than =
what we have here. There were no complaints that I can recall.
>=20
> We already link to the issues list for pretty much everything we =
discuss, and record state there.=20
>=20
> All that we're doing here is allowing discussion in the issues list to =
have "official" weight on decisions, in addition to discussion here, and =
documenting how that's accounted for. Practically speaking, the only =
change will be that we'll no longer have to tell people to "move it to =
the list" when they comment on the issues list.
>=20
> I will still be polling the list for consensus and input on design =
issues; if the resolution is non-obvious, I have no doubt we'll still =
discuss it on the list. If you've noticed, I almost always announce =
design issue resolutions over here too. None of that was documented last =
week, and yet you seem to be assuming that it will stop.
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
>=20