Re: To "lose the argument in the WG"

["Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>]

I just posted a note on the IETF list in one of the two discussions Pete 
is refering to.

Yes, I watched the discussion in the WG.
It took me a while to realize that the WG had really ended up in the 
state it did.  A state I consider a failure in terms of the document.
So it seems to me that I need to say so during the IETF LC.

Yours,
Joel

On 2/14/17 12:25 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
> On 13 Feb 2017, at 23:07, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
>     On 2/13/2017 8:50 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
>
>         The WG participant who felt that the functionality should be
>         in-scope
>         and is perfectly within bounds to make the case that the
>         functionality
>         is somehow necessary during Last Call. The chair and/or AD should
>         summarize why they judged the functionality to be out of scope.
>         Others
>         in the community might want to take up the argument and explain
>         why it
>         should be added.
>
>     This sounds like reasonable theory, but is actually rather
>     destructive practice.
>
>     It takes the position that Last Call is acceptable to use as a form
>     of appeals process, where folk who have been working on the topic
>     for an extended time have to defend their choices to a collection of
>     other folk who are new to the topic and are, therefore, making snap
>     judgements.
>
>     While, yes, there will be times that the new folk see something new
>     or better, that's not the usual occurrence. The usual occurrence is
>     that folk who are experienced with the topic and are tired from the
>     extended effort have to rehash their work and defend it to folk who
>     have not done their homework.
>
>     Either working groups are where the work really does get done or
>     they aren't. The burden of having to worry about and deal with a
>     larger, less-involved community being frankly encouraged to
>     second-guess the folk who have actual skin in the game, is an
>     example of what makes the formality of IETF process onerous.
>
>     Last Call should not require a working group to be subject to random
>     demands to defend itself. It should be for independent reviews that
>     see something the working group missed. Missed is different from "we
>     had a choice and we made it".
>
>     If a fresh reviewer really does do their homework and really does
>     present a good case for making a different decision, that's fine.
>     But it also is quite different than supporting the re-hashing
>     exercise that occurrs when an existing wg participant expresses
>     dissatisfaction with a decision made during normal wg processes.
>
> Would that we disagreed.
>
> Nowhere did I say that Last Call should be an opportunity to simply
> rehash, without having done homework. Indeed, you will note where I said:
>
>         Do note that in both cases, I think it's only fair that the
>         person bringing up the issue clearly states what's going on. For
>         instance, in the second case the person should really have said,
>         "This was judged out-of-scope by the WG/chair, but I think it
>         ought not be out-of-scope because of X, Y, and Z". Simply
>         saying, "Please make this change to the document" as if it were
>         never discussed before is not helpful to the rest of the list
>         during Last Call.
>
> For a WG participant to just throw out the same argument made earlier
> without explanation /and/ with the expectation that the WG ought be
> required to relitigate the whole discussion is /not/ reasonable. The
> case needs to be made that the WG (or the chair in judging) did in fact
> miss something when they came to rough consensus. The chair, not the
> entire WG, should explain why the conclusion was arrived at. (That
> should really be written up in the shepherd report, if we're being
> diligent.) Others can choose to ask questions or push back on either
> position if they think something serious has been missed. But to
> dismiss, out of hand, any such claim with "too late, already decided" is
> also unreasonable.
>
> Homework is required. Pointing out the failure is required. Avoiding
> simply restating a preference is required. I'm just objecting to the
> blanket statement, "If the WG came to consensus, even roughly, the
> discussion is over."
>
> (As I said earlier, in the case of something being declared
> out-of-scope, I'd expect the person bringing up the point to explain why
> being in-scope was essential. To fail to do so is bogus.)
>
>     ps. Pete's other point was about a claim that an issue didn't really
>     get settled and needs further review. That's quite a different case.
>     Maybe it's worthy for LC discussion. Maybe it isn't. Dunno.
>
>     pps. There's at least one case where I chose to attempt to use LC as
>     a kind of appeals process, since I deemed the wg process to have
>     been significantly flawed, including the cognizant AD. Like all good
>     rules, there need to be some exceptions thoughtfully permitted,
>     though of course my effort in this example of an exception bore no
>     fruit...
>
> I also agree that this should be fairly unusual. Again, what got to me
> was the automatic rejection of such an argument.
>
> pr
> --
> Pete Resnick http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/
> <http://www.qualcomm.com/%7Epresnick/>
> Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - [phone]
>