Re: [Idna-update] [I18nrp] FWD: Re: [I18n-discuss] draft-faltstrom-unicode11, i18n "directorate", and related issues

[Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>]

John,

On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 2:02 PM John C Klensin <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> --On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 19:30 -0800 S Moonesamy
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> > Hi John,
> > At 01:56 PM 04-12-2018, John C Klensin wrote:
> >> As the last part of the note below will make obvious (I was
> >> planning on noting it to this list separately) I decided to
> >> summarize what I believe the discussion was about to the
> >> IDNA-update, EAI, PRECIS, and IAB i18n-discuss lists to lower
> >> the odds that someone who should be participating in the
> >> discussion is accidentally left out of the loop.
> >
> > The proposal sounds like a cross between a working group and a
> > directorate.
>
> To a considerable extent, it is a cross between a working group,
> a directorate, and a review team.   See my recent long note.
>
>
There are critical differences in membership among these three.  In the
case of a working group, all IETF working groups are open to all comers.
Generally, review teams are closed but have their work evaluated by an open
group,  and they may be self-organized as well as assigned by chairs or
ADs.    Directorates serve at the pleasure of specific ADs.  The
accountability models in each of these is quite different as a result of
the different membership models.

If I understand correctly from conversations with them since yesterday, the
ADs are constituting a directorate and associating that membership model
and that accountability model with the effort.  That's clear, and I'm fine
with it.  Continuing to say it is a cross between or among other models
makes me concerned again, though, that there is some mis-communication
going on.



> >  I gather that directorate is not an exact fit if
> > it operates as a review team.
>
> But this is where we go into either a rathole or a procedural
> swamp that wastes time and frustrates some of the relevant
> experts into deciding to spend their time in other ways.
> Certainly, if they wanted to, the ART ADs could propose setting
> up three (in the extreme case) separate groups, a directorate to
> advise them on i18n strategy, a review team to evaluate both
> in-area and out-of-area (but primarily out-of-area) documents
> with i18n topics or impacts, and a WG to generate new i18n work
> and process documents.  They could then consider the fairly
> small number of experts available (both by knowledge and ability
> and willingness to commit) to populate such groups and do i18n
> work and respond by (at least mostly) appointing the same people
> to the first two groups and encourage them to join/participate
> in the third.   If only because of a shortage of volunteers,
> they might even appoint the same chairs/coordinators for all
> three.  Then they could figure out a way to make it clear which
> hat people were wearing when they said something and be prepared
> for complaints (or even appeals) when it wasn't sufficiently
> clear.
>
> Seems to me like a huge opportunity to waste time, spend energy
> on procedures that would be better spent on substantive work,
> and drive experts away from participation and the IETF and that
> it would have absolutely no advantages other than impressive
> ritual correctness.   YMMD.
>
>
While I generally like a good ritual (it's that background as an
anthropologist), I cannot agree that something that touches on the
accountability model is uselessly procedural. As I am sure you are aware,
some of the issues in this area have both large sums of money and
large-scale political implications at stake; being able to describe exactly
the scope of the power allotted to a group and from whom is one way of
avoiding expensive confusion later on.

> A directorate review cannot block a draft.
>
> Of course not.  Nor can a review team review or, by itself, a WG
> decision to not proceed with a draft.   An AD could take input
> from any of them and use it to block a draft or could proceed
> anyway (in the WG case by changing WG leadership, spinning up a
> separate WG, or handle the draft as an individual submission).
> Do you see enough difference there to justify quibbling over
> what this is called or creating new and elaborate procedures?  I
> don't but, again, YMMD.
>
> >  As Ted pointed out, it would be up to the Area
> > Director to take the decision on whether to "block" a draft.
>
> Exactly.   And that decision would be subject to pushback from
> other ADs in the Area, the full IESG, and to potential appeals.
> We have lots of protection against abuse against unreasonable
> blocking behavior... by anyone or any group.
>
> If we are clear that the model is that of a directorate and that the ADs
are the ones responsible, I agree.  In an open working group, the mode by
which one pushes back on a decision is very different, though, which is
part of why I continue to be concerned at descriptions that make this a
cross between or among models.

regards,

Ted




>     john
>
>