Re: To "lose the argument in the WG"

[John Leslie <[e-mail]>]

   I would like to weigh in to support Pete's viewpoint.

Pete Resnick <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Indeed. If Last Call results in an issue that requires a more general, 
> in-depth review, I think the presumption of that text is that it's time 
> to send it back to the WG.

   A lot of the problem is that responsible ADs don't do this often enough.

   (The <ietf> list is a _really_bad_ place to try to resolve such things.
We _always_ find WG participants calling "Foul!" and I'm sure there are
others thinking it...)

> When Last Call identifies an issue that was missed or mis-evaluated
> by the WG (perhaps due to JCK's observation about WGs that remain
> homogeneous and insulated), considerable cost and detriment should
> be expected, and is probably appropriate.

   (It's hard to fully support Pete here, but I do. "Appropriate",
however, doesn't mean "something to die for": it merely means "the
world would be a better place if it worked this way".)

> We have all seen efforts that have gone completely off the rails,
> perhaps due to bad> management choices,

   Pete certainly knows we get what we pay for, when it comes to
management skills...

> and it is a sign of pathology if that's only noticed at Last Call
> time. Yes, it should probably have been handled during the WG process
> or by interim appeals,

   We're scared of appeals, without good reason. (Heck, _I_ was scared
of them five years ago!)

   The IESG, IMHO, is far better able to process appeals than it was
five years ago; and I believe they're essentially ready to formalize
a way to deal with appeals without shooting the messenger.

> but if Last Call is where it's finally dealt with, deal with it we must.

   (Pete _is_ the eternal optimist here: there-aint-no-such-thing-as
"must".)

   But I quite agree, the world would be a better place if we dealt with
it when it comes up in last-call rather than leave it for implementors
to deal with in incompatible ways.
 
> My main complaint is that people are treating this as a game, with 
> points that are "won" or "lost".

   YES!!!!

> Telling people that they "lost" or that "it's just sour grapes" is
> obnoxious and has no place in the discussion. 

   There's the eternal optimist, again...

   Name-calling _is_ the IETF way, :^( :^(

   We've exhausted yet-another IETF Chair trying to cure people of
discourtesy so obvious that you'd get sued for it in a normal world.
I'm not fool enough to think I'll have any better luck; but I can
at least speak in support of Pete!

> If someone is abusing the process by bringing up previously 
> well-considered topics, of course the person running the Last Call has 
> to shut that down.

   Reality check!

   There isn't anybody "running last-call".

   If there were, s/he would have no tools to "shut that down".

> I can even tolerate the occasional random participant saying,
> "Pete, you know this issue was discussed at length, and you didn't
> even bother to fairly say why you think the WG came to the wrong 
> conclusion, so this is really just rehashing."

   (We ought to be able to find a way to ensure someone says that in
private email...)

   But I have a suggestion (which I guess is why I'm bothering to type
this):

   We have pretty good archive tools availabe for every IETF mail-list.

   Occasionally, I see a posting, "Please read the thread starting at

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/l4Mi7p-KJanEP1FuEmCDclo6REA

before posting any more on this subject."

   This is actually helpful!

   If the person has read the thread and _is_ merely repeating things
already said in that thread, s/he deserves censure, and this will be
obvious to anyone checking that thread.

   If this is new material to the person so advised, it will multiply
greatly the "clue" level going forward.

   If the person can't be bothered to read the cited thread, then a referral
to the sergeant-at-arms is justified.

   And people thinking of joining in will have the opportunity to increase
their clue level _before_ making a fool of themselves.

>> To Ted's point, indulging folk who 'did not have time' to participate 
>> earlier is frankly abusive of all those who did.
> 
> Yeah, I don't find Ted's point at all convincing either. On the other 
> hand, if the WG didn't seek out required expertise and someone does 
> notice a showstopper, that's not abusive. The WG screwed up.

   I agree with Pete here, too.

   But I don't agree it's likely the WG Chairs or participants are likely
to see it that way. Somebody will have to help them see this. The obvious
choice is the Responsible AD; but if we limit our choices of ADs to those
who agree this is their job, we might have trouble filling AD slots.

   :^( :^(

--
John Leslie <[e-mail]>