Re: New proposal/New SOW comment period

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

Sarah,

My apologies, but my frustration level with aspects of this
process was getting sufficiently high that I needed to take some
time off lest I say something offensive or that I would
otherwise regret.  In addition, I had a couple of standards
track documents in the IESG's processing queue and needed to
give them priority.

Ignoring (and eliding) things that I can remember others
covering and some that seem completely OBE, inline below...

--On Friday, September 13, 2019 09:34 -0700 Sarah Banks
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi John,
> 	Let me answer inline. SB// with <snips>
> 
>> On Sep 13, 2019, at 7:44 AM, John C Klensin
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
>> 
>> First I think Mike's "try this" effort to recast the SOW is a
>> step in the right direction but skips over, probably wisely, a
>> key point.  If the comments and suggestion in this note go
>> nowhere, I think his draft is a better starting point than
>> your/ the RSOC's original proposal.

> Speaking for myself, I do not think the SOW as written by Mike
> holds true for me. You can't beat up the IAB and RSOC for
> steering the process in some (potential) nefarious way, then
> effectively do the exact same and ask the community to bless
> it in the week left of a comment period. The community did not
> agree at the mic about what to do, or even what we disagreed
> on as a whole, and so the IAB outlined a plan for giving the
> community time to do it's thing, but keep docs flowing is
> something I believe firmly in. With my own community hat on, I
> WANT that. IMO we clearly need that. And while I haven't yet
> shared my opinions on what should happen next, cramming it
> into a weeks review of the SOW is wrong. Sorry. It's very
> important to me that we agree, or get rough consensus called,
> and I just don't see how that can happen in a week. I'd argue
> it already hasn't. We've had a few folks +1 Mike's SOW, but
> that's hardly indicative of the community as a whole. 

Others have commented about part of this.   Your line of
reasoning above essentially makes a call for community comments
useless because someone (or a committee, board, or other group)
can always say "we made a proposal, there wasn't very clear and
obvious support for something else, and therefore we are going
with our proposal".  A few years ago I would have argued this
was unnecessary, but it may be time that the IETF considers a
rule that, if a proposal originates with a given body, that body
is not allowed to be the determiner of consensus on that
proposal or alternatives to it.

Equally important and reinforced by experience in the last few
weeks, we end up with late review --not only in the last week
but even after the Last Call on a document ends-- and, however
inconvenient that is, we consider them on their merits rather
than discarding them because someone didn't make them early
enough.  Even later, IESG members can (and often do) show up
with comments within the 24 hours (or much later) before a
telechat and require that the issues raised be considered.  So,
as a community, we do what you suggest is unreasonable and do it
all the time.

I recognize that we are in a bit of a crisis here and that you
need to keep the documents flowing.  But I'm not sure that is
much different from a technical specification on whose approval
organizations and other work are depending getting held up
because of late comments from the community and the IESG.  And
messing this up in a way that reduces the quality of the
documents coming out of that flow wouldn't be wise either.
Remember that the RSOC and IAB do have a choice in this: the
main thing that really requires critical leadership in the next
few months is the transition to v3.  It would be sad to put that
process on hold, but probably sadder to mess it up for the long
term by putting people and a structure in place that cannot make
competent long-term decisions the community will be comfortable
with.  I'm not suggesting doing that; I'm only suggesting that
the RSOC and IAB should not pretend it is not an option.

>...
Because I've been attacked recently for writing notes that are
too long, I'm just going to stop here rather than addressing the
rest of your comments on my comments.  I do want to point out
one thing that I think others have said as well -- the SOW (the
RSOC's, Mike's, or a different one) and whatever process follows
it had best find someone with sufficient knowledge, and
knowledge-based opinions, to be able to do the job.  Otherwise,
the decisions that need to be made on a day-to-day basis are
just not going to happen (at least consistently) unless they are
actually made by the RSOC or IAB by micromanaging.  But, if you
get someone with that level of knowledge and the community
discussions lead to the conclusion that the job description and,
hence the person appointed, were wrong, you would be headed into
a management mess of very severe proportions with a high risk of
the appointee working in perfectly good faith but in a direction
to which the community is opposed.   So I know you are in a
hurry and I understand and sympathize with the reasons, but I'm
not sure that justifies the kind of haste that could lead to an
even worse situation.

best,
   john