Re: A few thoughts on processes WAS (Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb)

[Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]>]

Gonzalo, thank you for your posts in this thread. They were very helpful.

Best wishes to the RAI ADs and RTCWEB co-chairs, of course.

Spencer

On Saturday, December 7, 2013, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:

> Hi Dave,
>
> to be clear and somewhat more concise, the WG does *not* intend to
> replace any part of the consensus process in use in the IETF. The next
> step for the WG is to work out what statement about codecs it is
> reasonable to include in the next revision of the document (an Internet
> Draft).
>
> That document will then go through the typical WG discussions, WGLC,
> IETF LC, IESG evaluation, and approval. As usual, at any stage the
> document will be discussed and possibly modified.
>
> So, what the chairs are proposing is a way for the working group to work
> out a statement about codecs around which they can build consensus. Of
> course, nothing guarantees that consensus will be actually achieved.
>
> With respect to the actual process being proposed, the chairs have
> listened to all the feedback received from the RTCWeb community and the
> IETF community as a whole. Taking all that feedback into consideration,
> they are going to be proposing next steps shortly. They have not done so
> yet simply because the flu hit them hard last week.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Gonzalo
>
>
> On 06/12/2013 6:40 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> > Gonzalo,
> >
> >
> > On 12/6/2013 2:57 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
> >> Where people seem to disagree, often strongly, is on how proposals that
> >> will be put forward for such evaluation by the WG and the IETF community
> >> can be generated.
> >
> > That's odd.  I hadn't even noticed that that was part of the proposal
> > for voting circulated to the community, nor that it was a focus of
> > responses.
> >
> > From Magnus' original posting of the proposal:
> >
> >      "A large number of documents, over an extended period of time, with
> > nothing published, suggests some deep and serious problems for an effort
> > in the IETF."
> >
> > That's not about generating proposals but about choosing among them.
> >
> >
> >> On a related note, there have been some comments about the RTCWeb chairs
> >> effectively attacking the IETF principles. I think those comments are
> >> unfair. We are talking about three former ADs in different areas all of
> >> whom have made significant contributions to the IETF community along
> >> many years.
> >
> > As financial reports often note: "Past performance is not a guarantee of
> > future returns..."
> >
> > More significantly, Gonzalo, you've just invoked an ad hominem argument
> > as a defense (or justification.)  It's no more legitimate as a defense
> > than as an attack.  Stated simply:  the nature of the people who made
> > the proposal is irrelevant.  What matters is the nature of the proposal.
> >
> > And my own reading of the criticisms of the proposal that was circulated
> > was that they did primarily focus on the nature of the proposal, rather
> > than on the nature of the proposal's authors.
> >
> > But as long as you've made this personal, what happened to the general
> > preference in the IETF -- especially for efforts that are complex or
> > otherwise difficult -- to have working group chairs /not/ be document
> > authors, so that the chairs can focus on /neutral/ efforts at managing
> > the process?
> >
> > While there are never guarantees about the progress of an IETF working
> > group, such a separation might have had strategic benefit for this
> > effort.  I note a number of points of broader concern about this working
> > group:
> >
> >    1.  Chartered 1.5 years ago.
> >
> >    2.  11 working group drafts, with 13 related drafts.
> >
> >    3.  Nothing yet published.  No overviews, architectures,
> >     use cases or anything else foundational, nevermind actual
> >     specifications.
> >
> >    4.  WG can't even resolve choice of a component technology
> >
> >
> > Frankly it does not help that the effort already seems to have excellent
> > market and IETF mindshare as the 'future' of Internet 'rich
> > communications'.  Even the recent IAOC request for a volunteer is
> > calling for "exposure" to the technology -- although the technology
> > isn't stable.
> >
> > A large number of documents, over an extended period of time, with
> > nothing published, suggests some deep and serious problems for an effort
> > in the IETF..
> >
> > What am I mis-understanding?
> >
> >
> > d/
> >
>
>