Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-01

[Phillip Hallam-Baker <[e-mail]>]

Yes, I agree that the IETF has become a lot more open than the
self-perpetuating cabal that ran it during the mid 90s.

We no have de-facto term limits for ADs and it is no longer considered
acceptable for an AD to chair a working group (excepting process related
groups chaired by the IETF chair).

Gradually the IETF is shedding the constitutional innovations that were
meant to be better than democracy in favor of processes and procedures that
have been observed to work.


No, I do not expect a repeat of last time when the NEWTRK proposals were
killed in private and everyone sat in silence like a row of puddings when I
asked them to explain their reasons in the plenary.

At this point we do not have an assumption that the IESG operates by
collective responsibility makes decisions for the whole IETF in private and
then refuses to give reasons. That assumption is now dead, deceased, ...
snuffed it, that is an ex-assumption.

Just thought I would take the opportunity to point it out.


On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 11:31 AM, Spencer Dawkins <[e-mail]
> wrote:

> I've mentioned this to Russ privately, but it's worth saying it out loud
> ...
>
>
>
>  Phillip:
>>
>> Obviously, I was not General AD when this happened.  However, I was
>> Security AD at the time, so I was involved in the discussions that
>> included the whole IESG.
>>
>> I made my reply to your posting because I want people to realize that
>> there is another side to the story.  We need to learn from the history,
>> but we need to act toward improving the future.
>>
>> The IESG spent a huge amount of time on the NEWTRK documents in retreat.
>> The ISD proposal hit the IESG in a very bad way.  The ISD proposal
>> required the IESG spend a lot of time that the individuals simply did
>> not have.  Further, this came at a very, very bad time.  Admin-Rest had
>> consumed way to many cycles.  Perhaps the 1-step or 2-step proposals
>> could have been separated from ISDs, but that was not the path that was
>> taken.  I do not know the reasons.
>>
>
> IESG discussions are now a lot more visible to anyone from the community
> who cares to look, than they were during any part of NEWTRK. Beginning in
> late 2005, the IESG has published narrative minutes from every official
> telechat (details at http://www.ietf.org/iesg/minutes/2010/ for this
> year).
>
> When I served as IESG scribe, there were VERY few unminuted discussions,
> and they were identified as "executive session" in the minutes.
>
> In addition, I THOUGHT Scott Bradner had requested publication of
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-newtrk-repurposing-isd/, and
> that was the straw that broke the camel's back, but I didn't see any IESG
> evaluation records for any of the NEWTRK documents, except for the DECRUFT
> draft (
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-newtrk-decruft-experiment/).
> Speaking only for myself, I didn't know much about what the IESG thought
> before the NEWTRK session at IETF 63 in Paris, even though I was note-taker
> for every NEWTRK meeting, and I was an active working group participant
> (perhaps too active :-).
>
> I did not have the understanding about the IESG reaction to NEWTRK that
> Russ described in his note - and I don't think Russ is mistaken about that
> reaction.
>
> We have significantly improved the transparency of the IESG to the
> community since NEWTRK was on the docket. I can't tell you that Russ's
> current proposal will be accepted, but I think I can tell you that members
> of the community will better understand what the IESG's concerns are, and
> members of the community will understand which ADs have those concerns, so
> we can work on resolving them.
>
> This isn't a knock at anyone serving on the IESG during the NEWTRK era, all
> of whom except for Russ have moved on from their honorable service, and
> certainly not at Brian, who supported IESG narrative minutes as General Area
> Director when that was still controversial. It was just a different time.
>
> We still need to improve, of course, but it's fair to recognize the
> progress we've made.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Spencer
>



-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/