Re: registries and designated experts

Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> Wed, 13 June 2012 01:15 UTC

Return-Path: <derhoermi@gmx.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D849521F86EC for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 18:15:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QOY8cFNAsrib for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 18:15:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 93B6721F86C8 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 18:15:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 13 Jun 2012 01:15:49 -0000
Received: from dslb-094-223-202-247.pools.arcor-ip.net (EHLO HIVE) [94.223.202.247] by mail.gmx.net (mp029) with SMTP; 13 Jun 2012 03:15:49 +0200
X-Authenticated: #723575
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+K12o4KByKTwFfic6HjrJ85eLZ9Ak/8SyYTmdrge OQZHRY0vkpEXtx
From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
Subject: Re: registries and designated experts
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 03:15:54 +0200
Message-ID: <40qft756nm9l1g4q5asm5voc0jg2ng0pgl@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
References: <4FCDD499.7060206@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <4FCDE96E.5000109@cs.tcd.ie> <4FD7083A.6080502@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <4FD74FFC.3050905@stpeter.im> <4FD75881.3080102@dcrocker.net>
In-Reply-To: <4FD75881.3080102@dcrocker.net>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 3.3/32.846
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Cc: "draft-farrell-decade-ni@tools.ietf.org" <draft-farrell-decade-ni@tools.ietf.org>, Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 01:15:53 -0000

* Dave Crocker wrote:
>It's almost inevitable that many designated experts will, in fact, act 
>as gatekeepers.  For example the distinction between "won't do damage" 
>vs. "looks like excellent engineering" is more subtle in practice than 
>one might think.  Especially absent very precise specification of review 
>criteria and absent actual training of the reviewers.

It seems to me that if an expert reviewer thinks that something will do
notable harm, they should decline to make a decision and defer it to the
IETF at large; and any registration procedure that does not allow that
is broken. (Similarily, let's assume that something will do harm, but an
expert reviewer fails to see it, but others do: they should have the a-
bility to appeal expert reviewer decisions, so the matter can be brought
to the attention of more and possibly better qualified people; if that
is not an option, the process is broken; if, on the other hand, nobody
cares to use available procedures, including making a big fuss over it
in the regular press, or whatever, then it probably was not important e-
nough.)
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/