Re: [I18ndir] Will there be an I18N directorate meeting at IETF 108?

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Wednesday, June 24, 2020 00:26 -0500 Nico Williams
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 12:05:31AM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
>> --On Tuesday, June 23, 2020 14:15 -0500 Nico Williams
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 02:41:40PM -0400, John C Klensin
>> > wrote:
>> 
>> Let me try to explain the distinction because it is important
>> to [...]
> 
> All very well and good, your explanation of the distinction
> between directorate and review team, but you _did_ question
> the nature of this group earlier:
> 
>> >> Obviously the more fundamental question is "is there such a
>> >> thing as an I18N Directorate, or is there, at best, a
>> >> review team"?
> 
> That seems like a simple matter to settle.  If we can't, then
> it might be best to disband the group!
> 
> I don't recall this being called the I18N review team.  The
> very mailing list says "dir" in its address, as in
> "directorate", and the mailing list subscription welcome
> message called it the "Internationalization Directorate", the
> datatracker about page for it calls it the same, and goes
> further to say that it is a "specialized advisory group".
> 
> Surely that is sufficient evidence that this group is a
> directorate.

Except that "directorate" in the sense above is not (absent one
hypothesis) what is actually happening; certainly not since the
IANA tables issues were sorted out and draft-faltstrom-unicode12
was posted on March 11.  So we (at least you and I) have
agreement on what was intended but we have, again absent that
hypothesis), evidence that whatever is going on more closely
resembles "review team" than "directorate".  The difference is
important because it may affect how much energy some of us are
willing to invest in this.

That hypothesis is that either generally or in terms of
priorities relative to everything else that is going on, neither
Pete (as the nominal remaining co-chair) nor the ADs care
whether the groups in functional as a directorate or not.  If
they don't care or can't give it any priority, then the answer
should probably be either "disband" (as you suggest) or
"reorganize as a review team".
 
> "Review" is, at any rate, something that directorates do, and
> that this one is explicitly tasked with doing.  (Even review
> teams might meet from time to time, though since this is a
> directorate, whether review teams meet is probably not
> germane.)

There are two problems/distinctions.  One is that, normally,
when a directorate is asked to perform a review (perhaps
especially an early-stage one that is actually a request for
advice), the response is expected to be generally consistent, at
a very high level at least, with what would be the rough
consensus of experts in the field or the consensus of the
directorate, which better be much the same thing.  It is the
difference between an individual review by a person who is a
member of some team or on some mailing list and a group expert
review.  Pragmatically, if an author or WG looks for advice,
they have to be able to rely on that advice, at least to the
extent of not finding themselves alone and attacked from all
sides (including by directorate members) when they follow the
advice and the document goes into IETF LC.  Otherwise, rather
than asking the directorate for a review and advice, they would
be far better off, e.g., dropping Marc a note as a former PRECIS
chair and asking for his experience and opinion.   The other is
that Pete has told me (and I think some others) that he doesn't
want me/us to spend time on reviews but to instead focus on more
basic issues as core I18n protocols and quality control within
the directorate.  But I don't know how to do those things
without support from Pete and the ADs and a clear understanding
that this really is a directorate and how it is supposed to
work.  If I am not to be able to do those things, then either I
need different advice/instructions or we need to recognize that
this is a review team producing individual reviews and I need to
find a different way to get frustrated.

> Thus the distinction between the two types of groups does not
> seem pertinent to my question about whether there will be a
> meeting "at" IETF 108.
> 
> I am not asking for this group to do anything that others like
> it don't do.  Directorates certainly may meet, since we know
> some do.  Indeed, I'm not even asking _that_ this directorate
> meet.  I'm asking _if_ it will.

Ok.  And I am offering an opinion that, at least without some
work getting done and decisions getting made that don't seem to
be happening, meeting would be a waste of time.  I'm no more in
a position to decide whether it should meet that you are.

> You suggested that I should "write an I-D that ...".  Yes,
> well, I have. I've not submitted it _yet_, though earlier I
> did link the GH repository where I keep the source and
> rendered output.  I am, of course, willing to submit it --
> indeed, I plan to.  The thought occurred, you see, that if
> there was to be a meeting at IETF 108, then I might aim for
> it, and if not, then maybe the next one.

Ok.  And, while it is just my personal opinion and based on
several guesses (including, IIR, a quick look at the GH
repository) you need to take it to either the Internet Area or
the IRTF and not i18ndir.  That belief would be the case even if
the directorate were active and functioning as a directorate
because I would then also suggest that, with all of the
documents we should have in the pipe (many now-expired I-Ds), we
should not prioritize new network file system designs.  My
opinion might change after I studied a posted I-D, of course.
And YMMD and so might that of many others.

> Thus my question.  Mine was a simple, polite, and fair
> question -- one with a simple answer, and surely someone must
> know the answer to it: will this directorate meet "at" IETF
> 108?

Ok.  Then maybe I (and Asmus) should not have responded at all,
because only Pete and one or the other AD can make that
decision.  My note was just my opinion about whether such a
meeting would be necessary or desirable and the conditions that
might make it so.

As of now, I have seen no evidence that such a meeting is
scheduled or anticipated.

> (To be sure, my question does imply a desire that the group
> meet, but that's only implied.  If the group does not intend
> to meet, then that will be that.)
> 
> That question did not need to be non-answered the way you did.
> Nor did you have to initiate a competition over who has more
> expertise on any one matter.  If we meet, there will surely be
> plenty of time for that, if you insist on it.
 
> At any rate, the datatracker even shows that this directorate
> has two chairs; perhaps one or both might have something to
> say about the character of the group (since you questioned
> it), and/or even whether it should or will meet.  If the
> directorate will meet, I'll be sure to attend, and I hope you
> will as well.

See above and note that one of those co-chairs has been
essentially non-responsive for a few months (with a really good
reason for parts of that period) and the other indicated a
rather long time ago that he had no time to put in on this, or
other IETF, work.

So, for this decision and others, I await responses from either
the remaining co-chair, from the ADs to re-sort the leadership,
or from the ADs to manage some sort of reorganization.

best,
   john


> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Nico