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

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Thu, 06 December 2018 08:23 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: idna-update@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idna-update@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12A09128CFD; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 00:23:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UiCXzkqa1Xss; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 00:23:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2C07D127B4C; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 00:23:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1gUowi-0005hB-3g; Thu, 06 Dec 2018 03:23:44 -0500
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2018 03:23:36 -0500
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
cc: SM <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>, i18nrp@ietf.org, idna-update@ietf.org
Message-ID: <742AF7DA8806227F4BDD3BA8@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMB9v-JurHX1j2eemayTY307DuEtdxBZ2eC+86OyhKdJDw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <FF58A82A9FC582B643CD76B4@PSB> <6.2.5.6.2.20181204185928.1085a3d0@elandnews.com> <DECE7E7897CB1D5C5D548886@PSB> <CA+9kkMB9v-JurHX1j2eemayTY307DuEtdxBZ2eC+86OyhKdJDw@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idna-update/HcmVIq631JPTWbWN9Ajs5Pyuezs>
Subject: Re: [Idna-update] [I18nrp] FWD: Re: [I18n-discuss] draft-faltstrom-unicode11, i18n "directorate", and related issues
X-BeenThere: idna-update@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Internationalized Domain Names in Applications \(IDNA\) implementation and update discussions" <idna-update.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idna-update>, <mailto:idna-update-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idna-update/>
List-Post: <mailto:idna-update@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idna-update-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idna-update>, <mailto:idna-update-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2018 08:23:53 -0000

Ted,

I'm not sure whether we disagree or not.   So let me try a
shorter comment that gets to the bottom line.

(1) This <whatever> is going to be required to advise the ART
ADs and, at their option, the IESG and/or the broader community,
on i18n strategic questions.  There is no requirement on anyone
to take their advice and the membership is presumably recruited,
appointed, and serves at the pleasure of the ART ADs.

(2) This <whatever> is, as Marc pointed out about PRECIS, going
to get requests for help with profiles and the like.  Some of
those requests may come from outside the ART Area.  Again, there
is no requirement on anyone to take the advice that results
although I would certainly hope that the community and the IESG
would look on departures from it (or a deliberate effort to
avoid asking) with some skepticism.   That is similar to, but at
least initially with far less nominal authority than or various
Doctor teams. For example, I'm not anticipating an
entry/question in Shepherd templates although that would clearly
be up to the IESG.

(3) I am imagine interactions between the <whatever> or its
members and the EDU team about needed and useful training
activities and how to staff them.  Such questions would
presumably be under the supervision of the ART ADs in addition
to the overall supervision of the EDU team by the IESG.   I
don't see anything different or problematic there and, again, no
one would be obligated to take the <whatever>'s advice.

(4) At their discretion, the ART ADs could cut the <whatever>
out of the loop entirely on a particular document.   I'd expect
at least some of the members of that group to respond badly,
either resigning, complaining loudly that the ART ADs were
deliberately excluding input and then providing that input as
individuals during IETF Last Call, or both, but I don't imagine
the existence of the <whatever) would create, e.g., any appeal
rights that do not exist today.

(5) Strategic advice that the <whatever> might offer the ART
ADs, or at their discretion, publicly to the community, might be
similar to (whether consistent or not) advice that might
ordinarily, at at its discretion, come from the IAB.  That is,
AFAICT, no different from other directorates (or for that
matter, individuals) offering strategic advice -- insofar as the
IAB advice should get priority over that of others, it should be
because of the quality of thinking and explanation it reflects,
not because it comes _From The IAB_ or the pixie dust that is
sprinkled over it every March.   More generally, not only are
the ART ADs (or the IESG more broadly) not required to
prioritize advice from the <whatever> over advice from the IAB
(or vice versa), they are not required to accept either and
neither the <whatever> nor the IAB have any specific rights in
that matter.

Now, if we had a huge supply of expertise, I could see some very
strong arguments, starting with just sharing the load, for
trying to parse those functions into separate bodies/ teams.
But we don't have such a supply -- if we did and things were
working well in traditional ways, there never would have been a
BOF, the non-decomposing character issue would have been
addressed a couple of years ago rather than being turned into an
IAB statement that arguably added to the confusion,
draft-faltstrom-unicode11 would not be trying to address four
versions of Unicode at once, and so on.  So, do you have a
suggestion -- preferably one that has not already been tried and
been abandoned and does not involve Command Action or
Proclamation -- for solving the problem of being unable to
progress i18n documents, especially those that are intrinsically
interrelated whether they say so or not?

     john


--On Wednesday, December 5, 2018 14:55 -0800 Ted Hardie
<ted.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

> John,
> 
> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 2:02 PM John C Klensin
> <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> --On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 19:30 -0800 S Moonesamy
>> <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> 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
>> 
>>