Re: To "lose the argument in the WG"
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Tue, 14 February 2017 07:43 UTC
Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.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 3CFD21294A9 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 23:43:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 Ll-KGusIq3Xx for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 23:43:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB5AF1204D9 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 23:43:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [198.252.137.70] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1cdXlc-000GLj-DA; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 02:43:16 -0500
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 02:43:09 -0500
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>, dcrocker@bbiw.net
Subject: Re: To "lose the argument in the WG"
Message-ID: <C8DC848672108BF32D41ADAC@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <F4592855-640C-4A32-989F-275C359C89EE@qti.qualcomm.com>
References: <66A86016-0382-4B2C-B9E8-30638237CB68@qti.qualcomm.com> <00e13499-7cea-a79a-7de1-dd9bad4bc530@dcrocker.net> <F4592855-640C-4A32-989F-275C359C89EE@qti.qualcomm.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.70
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/iRclKztc1bLjY9tAoJV47-P7R9o>
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 07:43:21 -0000
Pete, I'm probably going to regret being drawn into this, but I think you (and Dave) are missing two additional cases, ones that complicate your analysis considerably even if they don't change your key conclusion. As the Internet and IETF evolve, I see increasing frequency of very homogenous WGs, ones whose active participants consist entirely, or almost entirely, of people who represent one perspective and who are narrowly focused on that WG's topic area. I addition to all of the usual possibilities, including the ones you mentioned, such WGs run multiple risks. To keep this from becoming over-long, the one that probably represents the case we see most often goes like this... The WG reaches fairly strong consensus on a particular set of issues, with only one or two people in the minority, taking positions the WG has decided are not interesting or not relevant. In that case, unless we require omniscience as well as fairness of WG Chairs, there is no error: the WG has reached rough consensus on a topic and those one or two participants are in the rough _within_ the WG. For that case, if IETF Last Call and the idea of cross-area review are to be more than rituals to support our mythology, it is absolutely necessary that someone who participated in the WG be able to come to IETF Last Call and say "look, the perspective of the WG was too narrow and, as a consequence, these issues that affect other things didn't get a reasonable hearing and the IETF as a whole should really reexamine them independent of the conclusions the WG reached (and/or the community should reexamine whether the WG was, in retrospect, properly chartered, constituted, and composed and, if not, whether its consensus and request for document publication should be taken seriously, FWIW, I believe that "strong consensus, but still wrong" was one of the cases you addressed with RFC 7282. I think that "too homogeneous a WG and too narrow a perspective" argument, if plausibly explained and justified, has to be taken serious even if there are no (other) new arguments or additional "homework". I also think it is a particularly difficult type of problem because, if the consensus recommendation from such a WG to publish a document is accepted, it reflects badly on the AD who authorized the Last Call as well as on the WG and its leadership. While it doesn't make "I lost the argument in the WG" is not helpful as a means of ending the conversation, "I lost the argument in the WG for what I believe were the following reasons ... and the IETF should review those issues" may be exactly what we need to hear as part of document review. That argument is very different from either "the WG CHair made an error" or "I was on the losing side and I want to keep whining about it and rehash the argument". Whether IETF Last Call is the right way to deal what that type of issue is a separate question. You and others have heard me say from time to time that we don't have nearly enough appeals. I think ADs should be monitoring WGs for sufficient technical diversity and range of perspectives and that someone participating in a WG who believes that the profile of participants in the WG is too narrow to encourage or allow arguing against WG conclusions on the basis of broader Internet considerations (whether decisions about WG scope get involved or not) should be encouraged to discuss that issue with the relevant AD and, if necessary carry the appeals process further, rather than quibbling about specific technical issues on Last Call. However, success in such an appeal would probably require shutting down a WG that has an active mailing list and meetings and is producing results. Our track record for such shutdowns is fairly close to non-existent. That same argument for appeals applies when people who are not part of the homogeneous majority are treated dismissively or otherwise discouraged from continuing to participate. We ought to be able to deal with those situations as instances of bullying, but if that has ever worked successfully, I'm not aware of it -- maybe you know of examples that I don't. Where I think we agree is that, while there should be a presumption that a WG that produces a draft and claims consensus for it has done its work and gotten it right, that presumption should not be very strong, should be easy to challenge, and that the position of someone who disagreed with the WG decision should not be dismissed on that basis. best, john
- To "lose the argument in the WG" Pete Resnick
- Re: To "lose the argument in the WG" Dave Crocker
- Re: To "lose the argument in the WG" Ted Lemon
- Re: To "lose the argument in the WG" Pete Resnick
- Re: To "lose the argument in the WG" Mark Andrews
- Re: To "lose the argument in the WG" Yoav Nir
- Re: To "lose the argument in the WG" John C Klensin
- Re: To "lose the argument in the WG" Stewart Bryant
- Re: To "lose the argument in the WG" Ted Lemon
- Re: To "lose the argument in the WG" Dave Crocker
- Re: To "lose the argument in the WG" Joel M. Halpern
- Re: To "lose the argument in the WG" Dave Crocker
- Re: To "lose the argument in the WG" John Levine
- Re: To "lose the argument in the WG" Pete Resnick
- Re: To "lose the argument in the WG" Pete Resnick
- Re: To "lose the argument in the WG" Brian E Carpenter
- Re: To "lose the argument in the WG" Ted Lemon
- Re: To "lose the argument in the WG" John C Klensin
- Re: To "lose the argument in the WG" Pete Resnick
- Re: To "lose the argument in the WG" Ted Lemon
- Re: To "lose the argument in the WG" Randall Gellens
- Re: To "lose the argument in the WG" Joel M. Halpern
- Re: To "lose the argument in the WG" George Michaelson
- Re: To "lose the argument in the WG" John Leslie
- Re: To "lose the argument in the WG" Yoav Nir
- Re: To "lose the argument in the WG" S Moonesamy
- Re: To "lose the argument in the WG" John C Klensin
- Re: To "lose the argument in the WG" S Moonesamy
- Re: To "lose the argument in the WG" Ted Lemon
- Re: To "lose the argument in the WG" Ted Lemon
- Re: To "lose the argument in the WG" John C Klensin
- Why do we have working group charters (was: To "l… S Moonesamy
- Re: Why do we have working group charters (was: T… Ted Lemon
- Re: Why do we have working group charters (was: T… John C Klensin
- Re: To "lose the argument in the WG" Joe Touch