Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends (Re: Measuring IETF and IESG trends)

Ted Hardie <> Tue, 01 July 2008 20:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 610FE3A6AFD; Tue, 1 Jul 2008 13:57:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 652FC3A69AC for <>; Tue, 1 Jul 2008 13:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.3
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RYOqy6RvnGio for <>; Tue, 1 Jul 2008 13:57:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 418853A68E5 for <>; Tue, 1 Jul 2008 13:57:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;;; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1214945840; x=1246481840; h=mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:to: from:subject:cc:content-type:x-ironport-av; z=MIME-Version:=201.0|Message-ID:=20<p06240604c49047431468 @[]>|In-Reply-To:=20<4868202B.5050408@piuha. net>|References:=20<20080624203548.D3A8D3A67FD@core3.amsl .com>=0D=0A=20<>=09<486267E0.80>=0D=0A=20<> =20<>=0D=0A=20<486380C4.6000607>=20<>=0D=0A=20<48>=20<> |Date:=20Tue,=201=20Jul=202008=2013:57:01=20-0700|To:=20J ari=20Arkko=20<>,=0D=0A=20=20=20=20 =20=20=20=20"Dondeti,=20Lakshminath"=0D=0A=09<ldondeti@qu>|From:=20Ted=20Hardie=20<> |Subject:=20Re:=20Qualitative=20Analysis=20of=20IETF=20an d=20IESG=20trends=20(Re:=20Measuring=20=0D=0A=20IETF=09an d=20IESG=20trends)|CC:=20""=20< >|Content-Type:=20text/plain=3B=20charset=3D"us-ascii" |X-IronPort-AV:=20E=3DMcAfee=3Bi=3D"5200,2160,5329"=3B=20 a=3D"4208344"; bh=ny3L9JY3DB8HWTILKkLZBqjC91RlCKmrPQNlj1ho4K8=; b=iYqr4GGzE7XnQZBhphQ5QcLQMVGXa+E39ExWkhmH3zxzs98cONfitr7E MIZ2Hyd4VCoPU9Cqw0bfxFQ201Ks5qmIafUj3Plt1R0bTJc/iNuY1qBwb C+ZAmeSZaA9dS0D7Uhy90Wr86Y4dq7RU40YsO0T+OnJzymN7EYVJQphOk I=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5200,2160,5329"; a="4208344"
Received: from (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 01 Jul 2008 13:57:04 -0700
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.2/8.14.2/1.0) with ESMTP id m61Kv43B025740 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 1 Jul 2008 13:57:04 -0700
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.2/8.14.2/1.0) with ESMTP id m61Kv3E8032764 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 1 Jul 2008 13:57:04 -0700
Received: from [] ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Tue, 1 Jul 2008 13:57:03 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <p06240604c49047431468@[]>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 13:57:01 -0700
To: Jari Arkko <>, "Dondeti, Lakshminath" <>
From: Ted Hardie <>
Subject: Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends (Re: Measuring IETF and IESG trends)
Cc: "" <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

>The problems with the Discussing AD proposing text are more in the area
>of scalability. I prefer seeing the authors (or shepherds) be active and
>propose ways to resolve an issue. Or at least the initial proposal,
>review and suggestions from both sides may be needed to converge.

This is not the big problem that other folks have been pointing to.  The
big problem others have been pointing to is that DISCUSSes are
not being used to say "here is a technical issue, for which any
solution acceptable to the community is fine", but are instead being
used to say "here is a technical issue, and here's what it would
take to satisfy me that it is resolved".  The second formulation
shortens easily in the minds of listeners to "satisfy me", and
when there is text presented, it becomes "add/change this as
below to remove my hold on your document".  The other
clause ("or I won't remove my hold") is clearly heard even
in the cases where the AD doesn't say it out loud.   Whether you
realize it or not, there are ADs who either say it about their
own positions or ascribe it to other ADs pretty freely ("That will
never get past the X ADs, unless you change to Y" being a
formulation heard in the halls all to often).

This not just about scaling problems. 


>- WGs that for some reason have stopped caring about anything else than
>getting the document published. Not care about the particular hoop that
>they have to jump through to resolve a Discuss. (And by the same token,
>not care about Comment level review issues at all).

The statement above is offensive, Jari.  Blaming working groups
for exhaustion after a late surprise is insensitive to say the least,
and that is the case where the late surprise is warranted by
a technical issue that does rise to DISCUSS levels.

Blaming them for exhaustion after intransigence by specific ADs
who really do mean "satisfy me" is worse than insensitive.  It's
blaming the victim.

>Some of these issues could be improved with a clearer definition of
>roles, and some additional guidelines on how to involve the WG.

You know, members of the IESG acting as a check on each other
and resisting efforts to force specific text changes would be useful
too.  If you would like to help personally rather than simply
spread the blame....

Ietf mailing list