Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends (Re: Measuring IETF and IESG trends)

Lakshminath Dondeti <ldondeti@qualcomm.com> Fri, 27 June 2008 19:32 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 5F86428C1B2; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 12:32:35 -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 C6F653A69AD for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 07:11:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.549
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.050, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 0F5UDutWWMpT for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 07:11:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wolverine02.qualcomm.com (wolverine02.qualcomm.com [199.106.114.251]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E16603A6957 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 07:11:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qualcomm.com; i=ldondeti@qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1214575870; x=1246111870; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc: subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:x-ironport-av; z=Message-ID:=20<4864F4FC.9040205@qualcomm.com>|Date:=20Fr i,=2027=20Jun=202008=2007:11:08=20-0700|From:=20Lakshmina th=20Dondeti=20<ldondeti@qualcomm.com>|User-Agent:=20Thun derbird=202.0.0.14=20(Windows/20080421)|MIME-Version:=201 .0|To:=20SM=20<sm@resistor.net>|CC:=20ietf@ietf.org |Subject:=20Re:=20Qualitative=20Analysis=20of=20IETF=20an d=20IESG=20trends=20(Re:=09Measuring=20IETF=0D=0A=20and =20IESG=20trends)|References:=20<20080624203548.D3A8D3A67 FD@core3.amsl.com>=09<48622DEB.7060403@piuha.net>=20<4862 67E0.8080704@qualcomm.com>=09<48628ED6.1000800@piuha.net> =20<4862BB84.4070401@gmail.com>=09<486380C4.6000607@qualc omm.com>=20<6.2.5.6.2.20080626175601.02d235b0@resistor.ne t>|In-Reply-To:=20<6.2.5.6.2.20080626175601.02d235b0@resi stor.net>|Content-Type:=20text/plain=3B=20charset=3DISO-8 859-15=3B=20format=3Dflowed|Content-Transfer-Encoding:=20 7bit|X-IronPort-AV:=20E=3DMcAfee=3Bi=3D"5200,2160,5326" =3B=20a=3D"4105216"; bh=SearEhHuezrrKiXmeLKw5R48NhAqOPCLNd3iD56EdfM=; b=F7YK+8PBIIhZG3ULtTX/vHTlQHg1Oz3RLYKMcGUNvMu4S2dMDPAiJP/A 7oNHkgKMIXTEkEnznDIkZCI/YcNDsmFRqAb5GQM7DPbWyLohp7yNDba00 bkweb3f6HW2vwbrhXr9HJlJ5m7+Ah4cDgSbMNoV8TILtaYnDqUXYhIO6W 8=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5200,2160,5326"; a="4105216"
Received: from pdmz-ns-mip.qualcomm.com (HELO ithilien.qualcomm.com) ([199.106.114.10]) by wolverine02.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 27 Jun 2008 07:11:10 -0700
Received: from msgtransport03.qualcomm.com (msgtransport03.qualcomm.com [129.46.61.154]) by ithilien.qualcomm.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/1.0) with ESMTP id m5REBAMr026945 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 27 Jun 2008 07:11:10 -0700
Received: from [10.50.65.82] (qconnect-10-50-65-82.qualcomm.com [10.50.65.82]) by msgtransport03.qualcomm.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/1.0) with ESMTP id m5REB6xB018833 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 27 Jun 2008 07:11:09 -0700
Message-ID: <4864F4FC.9040205@qualcomm.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 07:11:08 -0700
From: Lakshminath Dondeti <ldondeti@qualcomm.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Windows/20080421)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: SM <sm@resistor.net>
Subject: Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends (Re: Measuring IETF and IESG trends)
References: <20080624203548.D3A8D3A67FD@core3.amsl.com> <48622DEB.7060403@piuha.net> <486267E0.8080704@qualcomm.com> <48628ED6.1000800@piuha.net> <4862BB84.4070401@gmail.com> <486380C4.6000607@qualcomm.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20080626175601.02d235b0@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20080626175601.02d235b0@resistor.net>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 12:32:33 -0700
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
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

On 6/26/2008 6:35 PM, SM wrote:
> At 04:43 26-06-2008, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
>> But, surely the WG consensus counts as part of the overall IETF 
>> consensus process, doesn't it?  Please see the example in my response 
>> to Jari.  The shepherding AD (or at least the document shepherd) has 
>> an idea of the WG consensus as well as the IETF consensus.  We cannot 
>> simply weigh the latest opinions more than all the discussions that 
>> have happened as part of the WG consensus.
> 
> The document may be a product of WG consensus.  It still has to pass 
> through the community and the IESG to be published as an IETF document.
> 
> The WG knows about the internals of the document and generally have a 
> focused view.  The last call allows a wider range of input and to gauge 
> the impact the proposal may have in other areas.  It is not about 
> weighing the latest opinions more.  The author/shepard can always post 
> an explanation.  The participants in the WG should be aware that there 
> will be an IETF-wide last call.  You cannot blame the process if they 
> choose to remain silent instead of taking part in the last call.  Note 
> that letter-writing campaigns in a last call have been proven to be 
> ineffective.

Is it really necessary for all the battles to repeat on the IETF list? 
Why can't the shepherding AD judge the overall consensus?

thanks,
Lakshminath

> 
> Regards,
> -sm
> _______________________________________________
> IETF mailing list
> IETF@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf