Re: Clarity, evolving documents, living documents, the RSE, IETF Management Styles, and traffic volume on this list.

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 8:29 AM John C Klensin <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi.
>
> I don't know if anyone else is having the same problem, but I'm
> having tremendous difficulty following all of the messages in
> this thread, much less the thread about the happenings
> surrounding the RFC Editor function.  That includes the
> side-thread about, e.g., whether one can describe, with facts
> and careful reasoning, an idea or action as stupid without
> insulting the intelligence of whomever was advocating it.  Many,
> many messages.   If only to reduce the odds of re-inventing and
> repeating what has been said before, I'm trying to read
> everything in a thread before I start a response but it means I
> am running hours, sometimes days, behind.
>
> It is especially problematic because I'm also trying to find
> time to get some technical work done that much of the IETF seems
> to think it important as long as _someone else_ puts in the time
> to understand the issues and do the work [1].  I've has it
> suggested to me off list that maybe most of those participating
> actively in the discussions either don't have technical work to
> do or have too much time on their hands.  I'd rather think that
> priorities (and levels of support for IETF work) are different,
> but I do suggest, as Randy Bush has pointed out a couple of
> times, maybe it would be better if people took a deep breath,
> let some of these discussions sink in, and actual get some
> technical work done, including trying to finish I-Ds before
> Monday's posting deadline and then actually reading enough of
> those drafts to make IETF 106 more productive.
>
> Or perhaps, if these topics are really important enough, we
> should call off the IETF 105 agenda and devote the meeting to
> them, without conflicts and one day per topic.   I understand
> the logistical problems with trying to do that in one large room
> but perhaps smaller group parallel sessions and discussions on
> the same subject (with people allocated at random or when rooms
> fill up) and then summaries of conclusions would work even
> better.
>
> In any event, it is probably worth noting and remembering that
> these very long threads on the IETF list get participation from
> a very small fraction of the IETF community.  Whether others
> tune out after looking at one message or a dozen, we aren't
> hearing from them.  Because these topics have effects on the
> entire IETF, how it works, and how it is perceived, real IETF
> consensus --across the entire spectrum of IETF contributors and
> other materially affected parties-- is important if decisions
> are to be made.  It is difficult and perhaps impossible to draw
> inferences about consensus across the IETF when only a handful
> (or two) of people are participating.  It is even closer to
> impossible if those people participating in a way that
> discourages others from getting involved, however unintentional
> (and respectful) the mechanisms that are being used.
>
> A more substantive note or two follow, but I believe the above
> is important and it saddens me that it didn't come from someone
> in "the leadership".
>

It's worth noting that Alissa said something that reads to me as fairly
close to this last Wednesday.

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/5Q3KQOBY5FQTxh_-abI4M_fepQU

-Ekr

    john
>
> [1] I'm not trying to be cryptic, just to keep the above short.
> The very high-level summary of the topic area might be best
> described as a set of questions.   Do any of you, or your
> organizations, colleagues, or customers, use a language  that
> cannot be written properly in ASCII characters and even
> occasionally want to write it properly while using the Internet?
> (Note that list of languages includes English.)  Would you, or
> your organizations, colleagues, or customers find it helpful to
> be able to use identifiers, user names, or other descriptors or
> mnemonics that are not tied to English?  Do you think it is
> important that everyone have confidence that strings that should
> compare equal do so and that ones that shouldn't, don't?  Do you
> understand that the problems the other questions imply are hard
> and require either significant digging in or suggest that the
> IETF should publicly give up and accept the consequences?   If
> your answer to any of those questions is "yes", why are you not
> digging in personally and why are you allowing the IESG to
> essentially ignore the topics, not answer questions about how to
> progress documents, and to set up mechanisms and then neglect
> them sufficiently to ensure failure?
>
>
>