Re: [Iasa20] Ballot positions on draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc7437bis

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

Hi there,

On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 11:16 AM Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hi Barry,
>
> > On Jul 8, 2019, at 10:43 AM, Barry Leiba <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> >> Doesn’t it count for something that this document was approved by an earlier IESG in 2014?
> >
> > You're being disingenuous.  THIS document was never put before the
> > IESG before.  The draft that became RFC 7437 was, but that was a
> > different document.
> >
> > Today, we're being asked to review draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc7437bis, not
> > draft-kucherawy-rfc3777bis.
> >
> > Now, first, it would have been nice to have been alerted that a
> > thorough editorial review was not welcome *before* the document was
> > put on the telechat agenda and a ballot was opened.  I spent a few
> > hours working on it and being thorough, and would liked to have not
> > wasted my time on things that will be ignored.
>
> Sorry, this was my bad. When I see process bis docs on the telechat agenda I tend to focus on the changes visible in the diff, but I shouldn’t assume everyone does that.

Thank you.
I must admit that I *thought* that I was initially somewhat miffed
because I'd put in lots of time, and is seemed I was being asked to
rubberstamp something along the lines of  'cat RFC7437.txt | sed
"s/ISOC/LLC/" > RFCxxxx.txt".

On further reflection I realize that my discomfort was rather that I'm
sensitive to the recall and similar issues, and don't want my
"approval" of the document to be viewed as a signal that I think that
*everything* in this document is perfect - I don't want to dissuade or
discourage $someone (AKA, not me!) fixing this (and other issues in
this and other process documents) to reflect what the community
wants[0]. This is obviously a *much* larger, and much more difficult
set of questions, and I don't want to us delay "patching" this
document to reflect reality while solving the bigger, more important
issues.

When removing my DISCUSS position I spent quite a while trying to
figure out which of the other positions best singalled this -
initially I'd chosen Abstain, but this means "I cannot support sending
this document forward."
(https://www.ietf.org/standards/process/iesg-ballots/) - I *do*
support moving it forward, but don't want to signal it's perfect. "No
Record" doesn't work - I have reviewed it and have views. Discuss no
longer works - I am sympathetic to not opening the can of worms in
this patch cycle. Clearly Yes wasn't right, so "No Objection", coupled
with a soapbox sermon seemed to be best...


W
[0]: e.g I *personally* think that if I'm doing a crappy job, the
community (both in-person and remote) should be able to replace me.
I'd hope that there would be some clear signalling before so I know
that I'm messing up, but I really don't want people to be in a
position where they are not comfortable doing this because they fear
retribution or are not franchised.

>
> Alissa



-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf