Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft-klensin-rfc2821bis
Dave Crocker <dhc2@dcrocker.net> Thu, 26 June 2008 09:46 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEE3D28C154; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 02:46:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D21FE28C149; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 02:46:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.637
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.637 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.065, BAYES_00=-2.599, DATE_IN_FUTURE_06_12=1.897, SARE_RMML_Stock10=0.13]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NUCyNGt7x1OR; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 02:46:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (mail.mipassoc.org [IPv6:2001:470:1:76:0:ffff:4834:7146]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07C3028C108; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 02:46:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.3] (adsl-67-127-53-97.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [67.127.53.97]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5N97nPp018772 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 23 Jun 2008 02:07:54 -0700
Message-ID: <485FCAAF.9070808@dcrocker.net>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 09:09:19 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Windows/20080421)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Subject: Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft-klensin-rfc2821bis
References: <8832006D4D21836CBE6DB469@klensin-asus.vbn.inter-touch.net> <485590E2.3080107@gmail.com> <p06250116c47c330c7dd0@[75.145.176.242]> <4856DE3A.3090804@gmail.com> <C122F91B-59B0-49AC-ABBC-6752217C4E47@NOKIA.COM> <20080619024147.9146C3A6938@core3.amsl.com> <485A353B.30403@dcrocker.net> <20080619175645.0CA443A68C2@core3.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20080619175645.0CA443A68C2@core3.amsl.com>
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Mon, 23 Jun 2008 02:07:55 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: ietf@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
List-Id: IETF Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
(re-posted, since the original apparently went out with an unsubscribed From: /d) Russ, Russ Housley wrote: > I'm not sure I did a wise thing by joining the discussion, but in for > a penny, in for a pound ... What I am seeing is a thread that had some bits of silliness, early on, but has moved into serious, thoughtful efforts to put forward serious, albeit differing, points of view. Under those conditions and in terms of immediate and long-term IETF health, I am quite sure it is wise for the principals of the current situation to participate in a public exchange of this type: After all, the IETF is supposed to be about collaboration among equals. Collaboration does not have to begin with agreement, but it does have to begin. Having one or another party sit quietly off to the side hurts mutual understanding and, therefore, mutual comfort in the outcome. (I'll note that I found the latest postings by Ted Hardie and Robert Elz to be compatible with my own views and particularly well written. I found them worth re-reading.) > The first hint of this issue surfaces during Last Call. ... > When I highlighted this paragraph, the document PROTO shepherd ... As soon as discussion needs to review the timeline of the disagreement, we probably have a prima facie basis for suspecting a problem with the process, not just the people. The reason is that such a review tends to turn into a debate about what happened when, rather than about the substance of the Discuss. I suspect there are ways to improve the mechanics of the process leading up to and following a Discuss. I'm not sure what those are, but the current mechanics tend to favor informal, private exchanges which in turn favors limited, mediated information and limited review. These are not good for ensuring community buy-in or, for that matter, the quality of the outcome. I think that informal, private exchanges have an important role to play, because their personal dynamics is far less charged than a public exchange. But I suspect the current mechanics could greatly benefit from being more public. A simple suggestion that might help is that an Area Director who issues a Discuss could be required to post their reasons to the working group mailing list and be obligated to engage in a... discussion... about it, starting with a careful explanation of their justification for blocking approval. > Upon detailed study, I see that the paragraph could be more > clear. I've asked the author if he is willing to propose revised > text. Vacation schedules will keep this from happening in the next few days. At base, it is clear that the current appeal is not about John's willingness to make changes. It is about the application of a Discuss to force this kind of change and the claim that formal authority for it is lacking. >> If you feel that group was rogue, please explain. If you do not, >> what is the basis for your view that its considerations were >> sufficiently faulty to warrant being overridden? > > Prior to the appeal, this aspect of John's rationale was not > raised. It was not raised by John, the document PROTO shepherd, or > the IESG member sponsoring the document. Again, I hope we do not find ourselves in a he said/no he didn't exchange. I'll merely suggest that had the Discuss been immediately taken to the public mailing list, it seems pretty likely that salient details would quickly have been put forward. Again: having these authority-related exchanges be private makes them extremely fragile and subject to problematic outcome. Limited perspectives. Partial information. Likelihood of entrenched positions. All of that disappears -- well, ok, maybe not, but at least it's reduced -- when the working group is brought into the mix directly -- not mediated by a chair or author. > That seems to be the crux of the appeal. Does every possible thing > upon which an AD can raise a DISCUSS position need to align with a > written rule? Don't we select leaders because we have some > confidence in their judgement? If we are to have detailed rules, yet allow deviations from them, then what is the point of the rules? My own guess is that the real question is not about confidence in judgment but about the types of judgment that should be called for. I believe that a collaborative process which empowers a single person to block progress is broken in a very fundamental way. The premise of an open, collaborative process like the IETF has is that no individual's view/opinion is definitive. The most knowledgeable, most skilled and best-intentioned person has a bad day. Poor judgment even within their area of expertise, nevermind outside it. In an IETF environment, choice is directed by the ability to garner group support. This has direct long-term benefit: A choice dictated by a minority will not have broad-based support. One which really does represent rough consensus has already overcome the major barrier to adoption: a critical mass of the community agrees with it. We have a long-standing exception to this, when we ask IESG members to exercise veto authority. It sets one person's expertise against that of the folks who do the work. Worse, it is exercised at the end of their considerable effort. In the context of an IETF, this is strikingly dissonant. Contrast this with the view that the considerable judgment of IESG members is not for saying yes or no, but for raising flags. It takes quite a lot of skilled judgment to see when there is an embedded, subtle problem with a specification. And it takes quite a lot of skilled judgment to be able to communicate this problem to the community, so that the community itself can form rough consensus about the problem -- and the solution. My view has been that was the intent behind choosing the word "Discuss" rather than "No" or "Veto". I happened to be on the IESG at the time. While it was clear even then that some specifications weren't salvageable, it was also clear that the job of management in an IETF community was to facilitate development of community understanding and decision, rather than to exercise raw authority. (But then, we were just coming off of the IAB Kobe debacle and were rather sensitive to the exercise of authority.) Let me suggest something radical: Let's have fewer rules, not more of them. With fewer rules, there is a greater burden to explore and negotiate legitimate concerns carefully and explicitly. But if we are going to have detailed rules, let's follow them. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
- Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft-kle… John C Klensin
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Lakshminath Dondeti
- RE: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Eastlake III Donald-LDE008
- RE: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… John C Klensin
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Brian E Carpenter
- RE: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Eric Gray
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Pete Resnick
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Tony Hansen
- RE: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… John C Klensin
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Robert Elz
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… TSG
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… TSG
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Brian E Carpenter
- RE: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… John C Klensin
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Frank Ellermann
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Dave Crocker
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Dave Crocker
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Dave Crocker
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Brian Dickson
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Simon Josefsson
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… eburger
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… David Kessens
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Lakshminath Dondeti
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Fred Baker
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Fred Baker
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Lakshminath Dondeti
- RE: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Debbie Garside
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Marshall Eubanks
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Steven M. Bellovin
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Robert Elz
- RE: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Eastlake III Donald-LDE008
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Spencer Dawkins
- RE: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Scott O. Bradner
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… John C Klensin
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Pete Resnick
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Marshall Eubanks
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Eliot Lear
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… TSG
- example TLH (was: Appeal against IESG blocking DI… Frank Ellermann
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… LB
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Marshall Eubanks
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Simon Josefsson
- Limits of RFC 2606 (Was: Appeal against IESG bloc… Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Bob Hinden
- RE: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Debbie Garside
- RE: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Debbie Garside
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Robert Elz
- Re: Limits of RFC 2606 Frank Ellermann
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Frank Ellermann
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Robert Elz
- RE: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Dave Cridland
- RE: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Dave Cridland
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Frank Ellermann
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Ralph Droms
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Spencer Dawkins
- RE: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Dave Cridland
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Ned Freed
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Russ Housley
- RE: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Debbie Garside
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Russ Housley
- RE: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… John C Klensin
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Ted Hardie
- RE: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Pete Resnick
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Frank Ellermann
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Eliot Lear
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Ted Hardie
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Robert Elz
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… SM
- RE: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Debbie Garside
- RE: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Debbie Garside
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Russ Housley
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Randy Presuhn
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… John Levine
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Dave Cridland
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Russ Housley
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Russ Housley
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… John C Klensin
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… John C Klensin
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Pete Resnick
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Russ Housley
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Bernard Aboba
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Russ Housley
- RE: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Bernard Aboba
- RE: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Russ Housley
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Russ Housley
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Stewart Bryant
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Julian Reschke
- Measuring IETF and IESG trends (Was: Re: Appeal a… Jari Arkko
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Spencer Dawkins
- Re: Measuring IETF and IESG trends (Was: Re: Appe… Marshall Eubanks
- Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends (Re:… Lakshminath Dondeti
- Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends … Melinda Shore
- RE: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends … Ross Callon
- Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends … Jari Arkko
- Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends … Spencer Dawkins
- Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends … John C Klensin
- Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends … Lakshminath Dondeti
- Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends … Dave Crocker
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Dave Crocker
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Dave Crocker
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Dave Crocker
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… Dave Crocker
- Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends … Lakshminath Dondeti
- Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends … Lakshminath Dondeti
- Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends … Lakshminath Dondeti
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… SM
- Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft… John C Klensin
- Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends … John C Klensin
- Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends … SM
- Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends Frank Ellermann
- Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends Paul Hoffman
- Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends … Lakshminath Dondeti
- Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends … SM
- Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends … Lakshminath Dondeti
- Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends … Russ Housley
- Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends … Jari Arkko
- Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends … Ted Hardie
- Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends … Joel M. Halpern
- Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends … Jari Arkko
- RE: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends … Romascanu, Dan (Dan)