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

Jari Arkko <> Wed, 02 July 2008 12:28 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D98873A6B36; Wed, 2 Jul 2008 05:28:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 111AC3A6C31 for <>; Wed, 2 Jul 2008 05:28:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y3eBiad3Xo6U for <>; Wed, 2 Jul 2008 05:28:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:14b8:400::130]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1268B3A6B36 for <>; Wed, 2 Jul 2008 05:28:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59120198723; Wed, 2 Jul 2008 15:28:53 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from [] (unknown [IPv6:2001:14b8:400::130]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B12F198678; Wed, 2 Jul 2008 15:28:49 +0300 (EEST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 08:30:08 -0400
From: Jari Arkko <>
User-Agent: Thunderbird (X11/20080505)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ted Hardie <>
Subject: Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends (Re: Measuring IETF and IESG trends)
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <p06240604c49047431468@[]>
In-Reply-To: <p06240604c49047431468@[]>
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
Cc: "" <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"


> 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".

Ack. I agree that this is a concern, and something that I forgot to put 
on my list.

Of course, as Joel and Brian pointed out, identifying this problem is 
not always as simple as looking at whether text came from the AD. Also, 
*if* you assume the Discuss was appropriate, presumably the resolution, 
whatever it is, has to satisfy some criteria so that the original 
problem goes away. If an AD is not happy about a particular text 
proposal, is it because the criteria was not met, or was it because he 
or she insisted on particular text? Obviously the former is appropriate 
and the latter is not. And how well were the criteria described? Many 
debates about resolutions involve either unclear criteria or 
disagreements about whether all criteria need to be fulfilled, more than 
the actual words in the resolution.

> The statement above is offensive, Jari.  Blaming working groups
> for exhaustion after a late surprise is insensitive

I'm sorry you found it offensive. I did not mean to be insensitive. If 
it helps, this item was on a long list of reasons why WG involvement 
isn't being handled as well as it should be. Not the biggest reason, or 
very commonly occurring one. (But I think I've seen a few cases where 
the author/WG was not interested in the particular way to resolve an 
issue, as long as it was resolved. Can't speak about why they were in 
that state.)

Many, if not most reasons on my list rest on the ADs and some on the 
shepherds. I blame myself for not doing a better job in involving the 
WGs and I plan to improve this for the documents that I sponsor.


Ietf mailing list