Re: [I18ndir] I18NDIR advice and process (was: Re: I18ndir last call review of draft-ietf-regext-dnrd-objects-mapping-06)

[Pete Resnick <[e-mail]>]

On 6 Mar 2020, at 15:56, John C Klensin wrote:

> --On Friday, March 6, 2020 13:14 -0600 Pete Resnick
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> On 6 Mar 2020, at 12:39, John C Klensin wrote:
>>
>>> So it seems clear to me, if only from this issue and the UTF-8
>>> one, that the document needs work and that it is possible that
>>> some of that work will be significant enough that another Last
>>> Call will be needed.
>>
>> Please let's keep comments about how an AD or Chair should run
>> the IETF process off of this list and instead take it to
>> private email (if at all). This discussion should be limited
>> to the technical comments on problems in documents. The only
>> process discussion on this list should be about how the
>> directorate do things.
>
> Sorry, Pete, even if its form was not ideal from your point of
> view, that was a suggestion about how the directorate does
> things.

Just to be clear, in case it wasn't before, it was only the part of your 
message that I quoted that I had any issue with whatsoever. And up to 
including where it says "the document needs work", I have no issue. It's 
what follows regarding "another Last Call" that that I was commenting 
on.

> The directorate is supposed to give advice to the ART
> ADs on how to make progress on i18n topics.  The advice I am
> giving (or, if you prefer and are actually going to organize and
> moderate discussions as I understood you were tasked to do and
> have promised to do, a suggestion I am making to i18ndir for a
> recommendation to the AD(s) is:
>
> (1) This document, in its current form, is not ready for a
> document action and publication as a Proposed Standard.  That
> recommendation is perfectly appropriate as part of a document
> review.

You bet. Saying "not ready" is absolutely one of the appropriate 
responses.

> (2) The work required to fix it will probably result in
> sufficiently substantive changes that it will be necessary for
> the WG to be consulted -or- will require the WG to make some
> substantive decisions.

It depends on what you mean. My assumption is that once we give a review 
and advice, the WG is responsible to come to us with questions about 
what needs to be done. The review should already lay out what work will 
be involved to make the document "ready" (either in general terms or 
specific suggested changes), and if the WG needs more advice on how (or 
if) to make particular changes, we are happy to advise. Insofar as we 
give general terms of changes that need to be made, we should quantify 
the extent of those changes as much as we can so the AD and the WG 
understand what's involved. And one or more of us might offer to work 
directly with the WG on the issues. (Effectively, what you describe in 
#3.)

However, we don't have to (and shouldn't) tell the AD, "The WG is going 
to have to consult us further". That's presumptuous. The AD might decide 
that the document should be dropped in its entirety. They might decide 
that the WG needs to be rechartered in some way. We have a 
responsibility to tell the AD about the i18n work that needs to be done, 
and how we can help get it accomplished, but not how to do their job.

> (3) ...part of that advice was just a variation on "not ready for
> publication" and the other part was suggesting a way to move
> forward.  Either would be appropriate in a review; either would
> be appropriate as advice for the directorate to give the AD(s).

Assuming we're talking about the same part, yes, I agree.

> (4) At least from my perspective, looking at this document (and
> several others, but we haven't talked about them this week) has
> suggested that it may be time to update the advice the IETF
> gives document authors about i18n issues.

I agree. In addition to updates to the documents you talked about, I 
think updating the assorted wiki "cheat-sheets" that I've seen over the 
years into something more comprehensive and helpful would also be great.

> So the only problem I can see with that part of the
> discussion is if you believe that the directorate is only
> allowed to examine topics that you assign to it.

Nope, not a belief of mine at all.

> So, can you better explain what problem you see with the
> discussion and recommendations -either to the AD or to the
> directorate to recommend to the AD- so I can better understand
> what I'm forbidden to say and why?

I think "forbidden" is a bit dramatic. All that I was suggesting is that 
we (as a directorate) not try to tell ADs how they ought to run the Last 
Call process, or any other aspect of the process, unless that advice is 
solicited. (We are not an exceedingly shy bunch about privately telling 
ADs how to do their job, and I would not presume to tell anyone what 
they should or should not say to an AD in private, at least not in my 
capacity as cat-herder of this directorate.)

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best