Re: "why I quit writing internet standards"

Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com> Mon, 14 April 2014 16:17 UTC

Return-Path: <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF6501A0653 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 09:17:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uz1iFN6R-UYe for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 09:17:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yh0-x22b.google.com (mail-yh0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c01::22b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D41AC1A0667 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 09:17:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yh0-f43.google.com with SMTP id b6so8191617yha.2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 09:17:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=y/nBpIEVjfqXWWyQ57tboIsakmubNF6kf2y+rwKUyeM=; b=Eth5rezeJnXaIWcHINz81uWQ2+i3bB4rnPE7U2hYEXyfHWY8K1KkaZhdWvpc51Wy3K DPWHmeiPck6u8pcX4W6/6oUOuoLGI00LywEl6OUHUwq+fXOrITDR8fCO87/7nx4sE/il bZ2XqluD4RpM6UCJle2zK2p85wOY8rgG1T1AbGPpW/7VH7/FqWGLbAX6M3w93QqXmXA3 IPJhtvdzNFEy0fUgwfimB1oR6FkALkzoinHS1RAiOyuhO4a0QIdr3xzjYH7V+YCaeDNF skf9t7NldKbcG6wIjWYxmOxq3RuC2y397TpByMEZukmuNu6NPGJGW1fWxDucPhNArHvu iopA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.236.79.134 with SMTP id i6mr60155149yhe.16.1397492221266; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 09:17:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.170.87.135 with HTTP; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 09:17:01 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CF71721A.180A9%wesley.george@twcable.com>
References: <CF71721A.180A9%wesley.george@twcable.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 17:17:01 +0100
Message-ID: <CADnDZ88i9tzST7d8QraJ4HMuCVqr2NPBvDej3p0SRwuS0zQbQw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: "why I quit writing internet standards"
From: Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
To: "George, Wes" <wesley.george@twcable.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf300510446cd0a004f70303e2
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/QHred_8XQl7XPtmAFK_o8MqGBVs
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 16:17:40 -0000

I was thinking of why many quit reviewing adopted IETF drafts (or even quit
participating). In my situation there is a draft adopted in 6Lo WG and
still the author does not answer my question reminder, and it may make me
quit reviewing as well. I think IETF does not have problem of
participants quit to write but participants quit to review and contribute
more into drafts.

AB

On Monday, April 14, 2014, George, Wes wrote:

>  I’m surprised that no one has sent this out yet:
> http://gigaom.com/2014/04/12/why-i-quit-writing-internet-standards/
>
>  "Summary: After contributing to standards organizations for more than
> seven years, engineer Vidya Narayanan decided it was time to move on.
> Although she still believes that these organizations make the Internet a
> better place, she wonders about the pace of change versus the pace of
> organizations."
>
>  My thoughts-
>
>  There are some nuggets of truth in what she says in this article, and in
> some of the comments. I think that the problems are real, so there’s value
> in taking the criticism constructively, despite the fact that the author
> chose to focus on the problems without any suggestions of solutions.
>
>  "while the pace at which standards are written hasn’t changed in many
> years, the pace at which the real world adopts software has become orders
> of magnitude faster."
> …
> "Running code and rough consensus, the motto of the IETF, used to be
> realizable at some point. … In the name of consensus, we debate frivolous
> details forever. In the name of patents, we never finish.”
> …
>  "Unless these standards organizations make radical shifts towards
> practicality, their relevance will soon be questionable.”
>
>   I don’t have too many big ideas how to fix these problems, but I’ll at
> least take a crack at it in order to spur discussion. My paraphrase of the
> problem and some discussion follows.
>
>  - We’ve lost sight of consensus and are too often derailed by a vocal
> minority of those willing to endlessly debate a point.
>
>  Part of the solution to that is reiterating what consensus is and is
> not, such as draft-resnick-on-consensus so that we don’t confuse a need for
> consensus with a need for unanimity. Part of the solution is IETF
> leadership helping to identify when we have rough consensus encumbered by a
> debate that will never resolve itself, without quieting actual disagreement
> that needs continued discussion in order to find a compromise. I don’t have
> good suggestions on how to make that second half better.
>
>  - We don’t have nearly enough focus on running code as the thing that
> helps to ensure that we’re using our limited cycles on getting the right
> things out expediently, and either getting the design right the first time,
> or failing quickly and iterating to improve
>
>  The solution here may be that we need to be much more aggressive at
> expecting any standards track documents to have running code much earlier
> in the process. The other part of that is to renew our focus on actual
> interop standards work, probably by charter or in-group feedback, shift
> focus away from BCP and info documents. Perhaps when considering whether to
> proceed with a given document, we need test as to whether it’s actively
> helpful/needed and ensure that we know what audience would be looking at
> it, rather than simply ensuring that it is “not harmful” and mostly within
> the WG’s chartered focus.
>
>  Thanks,
>
>
>
> Wes George
>
>
>  Anything below this line has been added by my company’s mail server, I
> have no control over it.
>
> -----------
>
> ------------------------------
> This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable
> proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to
> copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely
> for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you
> are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that
> any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to
> the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and
> may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify
> the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of
> this E-mail and any printout.
>