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

["Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>]

Of course, we also get complaints whenever anyone raises an issue 
without providing text.  So, by a strict reading of the argument, the AD 
is hanged if he provides text (directing the working group) and hanged 
if he does not provide text (you didn't make clear what your problem is, 
and how to fix it.)

In practice, we need to allow both sides of that to occur.  But we need 
to be careful in adjusting the process not to say things like "ADs 
providing text is a bad thing, because it is all to easily read as a 
demand."  (And it is true that such text often is seen as a demand.) 
Or, I suppose, we could say that ADs should never provide text :-)

Joel

Ted Hardie wrote:
>> 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. 
> 
> <snip>
> 
>> - 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....
> 			Ted
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf