Re: hampering progress

Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> Wed, 21 April 2021 17:35 UTC

Return-Path: <mike@fresheez.com>
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 517EB3A30A7 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 10:35:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.751
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.751 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mtcc.com
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 SCVopHXoCoz1 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 10:35:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg1-x529.google.com (mail-pg1-x529.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::529]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 35B593A30B0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 10:35:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg1-x529.google.com with SMTP id 31so15058108pgn.13 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 10:35:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mtcc.com; s=fluffulence; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=QVIb/1zseRkquYiGQWpVg2LOen1gHNH4ValDStlUBEQ=; b=ByRJyxVvg1qMCpJXDnBZCVnjsaMILiGEKpfIlbPVVRwxDQyoq8oWa9QcaPbJA/bPEl 61icK0+nw2QUcfwdLCEFfonqXEQ1jgRp+ZgJ3oMHsjkJAQJyz52mw2GKpskWoXEEpMBy uxps+KXoOeknlObic0PCLg2TfS86sJwJ57VWhiGzq7Q9c3eq0LPST0aq63YDEfUaQv0i CMCeT4XlvmBaJ/StjgoaSj7Jr2ME6wLc/Hr+kL8ZJ3T6Me/lGesScNBbfAjJ7E0WRuOP f31HumWFMVFivry+CrAbUGjB2WohllCtwnPxp8NAuA8yzbM/PHvT/mCLi8e9TF+CwA4i VsKg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=QVIb/1zseRkquYiGQWpVg2LOen1gHNH4ValDStlUBEQ=; b=MiiGMIwRTEk2FaaFvBYw/j2tirahykJhGRJaqxOl9dJw+vHIC+kjUg4QCabGjn6V3N rfHLVetKs+fD4ESbr8HDYmrUH5rrLUpywoqm1tnrN+rC9W1lgns5C0chvze5kgmK0XvI 0P9PgxHaMuFc6ULkQv5kQG1YYlkiHIJzAo6Eo0RXuggz1BqpLU0NlHjNh8fqftbcl4vs Sz/emON3Kb1gRv/I2XigzJlFCIVxa6KE5aR7t2ZhmU1sWQbn8t3bdyDeSDuUx5Crnls2 TRoUFIPplpQCeD6vDesYykx4qTUG46kXQ6yTgpxeko3uWT1Guwu52/tu06eCQ+j/qnRd Iesg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533Ce0b+8sjLV/x1PQpNINPVOcX9o8s0SDohvkEN+zBFdLgsz5wL 1XMC/JM8/IasSGpLFrhkYzl4Y2QWQvchSA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzfdawh9hutDKqMk6COVEHarqixqL8384Ku/jEb/x/deVpxCG61FsyvOKDo3WQTjGYEKZSGVg==
X-Received: by 2002:aa7:8389:0:b029:209:da1c:17b5 with SMTP id u9-20020aa783890000b0290209da1c17b5mr30915754pfm.29.1619026514883; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 10:35:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mike-mac.lan (107-182-43-245.volcanocom.com. [107.182.43.245]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l22sm2734404pjc.13.2021.04.21.10.35.13 for <ietf@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 21 Apr 2021 10:35:14 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: hampering progress
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <93fedaa0-5ad0-dcc0-ff01-43b8e1c97989@mtcc.com> <19f2b2e1-6365-480a-86f2-111377cac2de@www.fastmail.com> <b69b742f-bc1d-9e00-7119-ff5b3ad6cfc5@gmail.com> <58650505-ce3c-e99f-fdf8-89e52ccb185e@mtcc.com> <1e150d1b-328f-071d-77a1-9cb7824abbd4@joelhalpern.com> <9dcb5b2a-a8aa-c642-d43d-f9b345ccba70@network-heretics.com>
From: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>
Message-ID: <d60ac36e-726f-9567-99b1-83635ecefe86@mtcc.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2021 10:35:12 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <9dcb5b2a-a8aa-c642-d43d-f9b345ccba70@network-heretics.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/e_Bfxjza-DFK_EPw-jgBvvg7I6U>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 21 Apr 2021 17:35:50 -0000

On 4/21/21 10:20 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
> On 4/21/21 1:06 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>
>> Michael, I hav eno idea whether your work was or was not appropriate 
>> for the QUIC working group.
>>
>> Arguing that working group chairs an not declare things out of scope 
>> weakens your overall argument.  Working groups have charters.  The 
>> chairs are expected to work within the charter. Working group email 
>> lists are for discussion of topics relevant to the working group.
>>
>> Now, I will grant that charters are not precise.  Topics are not 
>> precise.  And chairs should (and generally do) err on the side of 
>> allowing some latitude.
>> But claiming that chairs can not rule things as being out of scope 
>> does not match our process, and would hamper our work. (Who has, as 
>> WG co-chair, suggested to more than one author team that the 
>> independent stream would make a better home for their work, as it 
>> does not fit the charter of the working group.) 
>
> Concur with Joel on the above.
>
> Also, if you believe that a WG chair is unfairly excluding 
> contributions that are within the WG's charter, that seems like 
> grounds for an appeal, and differences of opinion about such judgments 
> are one of the reasons that we have an appeals process.

My overarching point here is that it was entirely predicable. To get 
shut down unceremoniously after a half dozen messages and less than a 
day... really? That impeded working group progress? As I said before, 
there are no other venues to go to to get answers to basic questions. 
Are working groups so fragile that they can't have any meta conversations?


>
> In other words, if a dispute can be handled by existing process, 
> trying to let that process work might be the best thing to do. If you 
> try the process and it doesn't work for whatever reason, maybe there's 
> a bigger problem there.

Sorry, I have no interest in "appealing" or chasing other process. The 
point here isn't to "win".

Mike