Re: Please Review Draft IESG Statement on Activities that are OBE

["Spencer Dawkins" <[e-mail]>]

Hi, John,

Your observations make sense to me. Thanks for sharing, as always.

Spencer

From: "John C Klensin" <[e-mail]>


> --On Tuesday, February 03, 2009 11:40 -0600 Spencer Dawkins
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> Speaking as someone who usually doesn't know what the IESG is
>> thinking ... ;-)
>>... 
> Spencer,
> 
> Since you addressed part of your comments to me, let me try a
> specific answer:
> 
> (1) Anything that clearly shifts this document toward "guidance
> to the community about how the IESG is thinking about things"
> and away from "more rules" will make me proportionally happier.
> Certainly eliminating the 2119 language would help in that
> regard.
> 
> (2) The reason I asked the question about what the problem was
> being solved is that I don't believe we have an OBE
> specification problem.  I believe we have a problem that derives
> from an apparently growing reluctance on the part of the IESG to
> shut down disfunctional and non-productive WGs and WGs that are
> just not worth the resources they consume.  The OBE situation is
> just a special case of that more general problem.  I imagine
> that the reluctance is caused by the IESG not believing it has
> community support for such shutdowns.  More specifically, while
> much of the community favors them in the abstract, shutting down
> a WG will almost always upset those who have invested work in it
> and, in today's IETF, they will be a lot louder than those who
> will applaud the action.  If that is, in fact, the problem, then
> I don't think posting this document as a special case will solve
> it. At the same time, if the IESG has decided that, even if they
> can't or won't solve the disfunctional WG problem generally,
> they are willing to take a stand about the OBE case, I'm in
> favor of it.
> 
> (3) Finally, reprising many comments and specific suggestions
> over the years, I believe "under what circumstances should we
> shut this WG down?" is the wrong question.  Instead, we should
> be devising criteria, interpreting benchmarks, and possibly
> using IESG turnover as triggers for review of WGs, reviews that
> start from the assumption that, beyond a certain point, a WG
> needs to justify its continued existence rather than requiring
> an AD to justify calling it off.  I don't know if it is still
> possible to do that in the IETF, but I note that ISO (including
> ISO/IEC JTC1) learned the value of shutting down projects how to
> do that, in part, from us and created more specific sunset and
> timeout procedures around it than we ever had... and that,
> during the same period, we forgot how to shut WGs down when they
> were not performing.
> 
>   john
> 
> 
> 
>

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37B1E28C162; Tue, 03 Feb 2009 12:15:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCCE428C150	for <[e-mail]>; Tue, 03 Feb 2009 12:15:05 -0800 (PST)
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 aNB5027N5ork for <[e-mail]>; Tue, 03 Feb 2009 12:15:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from elasmtp-mealy.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-mealy.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.69]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0020A28C105	for <[e-mail]>; Tue, 03 Feb 2009 12:15:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [68.166.188.59] (helo=oemcomputer) by elasmtp-mealy.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from <[e-mail]>) id 1LURfK-0005jZ-C1	for [e-mail]; Tue, 03 Feb 2009 15:14:38 -0500
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2009 12:18:38 -0800
From: Randy Presuhn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Please Review Draft IESG Statement on Activities that are OBE
X-Originating-IP: 68.166.188.59
Sender: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Errors-to: [e-mail]
Message-id: <005101c9863c$99dc9660$6801a8c0@oemcomputer>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1478
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1478
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-priority: Normal
Precedence: list
Delivered-to: [e-mail]
X-Original-To: [e-mail]
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.032
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.032 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.567, BAYES_00=-2.599]
X-ELNK-Trace: 4488c18417c9426da92b9037bc8bcf44d4c20f6b8d69d8886924630f8852f1737dbc2c2c98564984949886c7915087e6350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
X-BeenThere: [e-mail]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
List-Post: <mailto:[e-mail]>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:[e-mail]?subject=subscribe>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:[e-mail]?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Help: <mailto:[e-mail]?subject=help>
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;	s=dk20050327; d=mindspring.com; b=cizdJRbqrdwkVEXbSOF337UTfctaHmOO+efWRcVz/W8gs35BjQivoG3kAf0rPMGF; h=Received:Message-ID:From:To:References:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;

Hi -

> From: "John C Klensin" <[e-mail]>
> To: "Spencer Dawkins" <[e-mail]>; "Harald Alvestrand" <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 11:50 AM
> Subject: Re: Please Review Draft IESG Statement on Activities that are OBE
...
> (1) Anything that clearly shifts this document toward "guidance
> to the community about how the IESG is thinking about things"
> and away from "more rules" will make me proportionally happier.
> Certainly eliminating the 2119 language would help in that
> regard.
...

The proposal strikes me as largely a statement of common sense.
However, "common sense" is notoriously difficult to state correctly
in formal terms, and a fear that the 2119 terms lack the fuzziness
needed for this kind of proposal.  We *generally* don't want to spend
resources on things OBE, but there are cases (like TCP/IP) where
it might be in the organization's interest to do so anyway.

Randy

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf