Re: hampering progress

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Wed, 21 April 2021 17:06 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.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 B2E773A2FB5 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 10:06:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.801
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.801 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.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 RP1v4EsnHGmn for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 10:06:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from maila2.tigertech.net (maila2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.152]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 209593A2FAE for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 10:06:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FQRmL4TMnz6G9vy; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 10:06:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1619024802; bh=QFuIxPTjq0pnvgUBoyesZtOoceDlmh+RvkTr11XTzLU=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=nLcKr45d/lzaOfwzlRaEnHMLomHCAz8zfnqmZuzUWdhp7mtf7SqUMwAuclHEoxsMb ifhuQmsXqIEd4RZMHSd80c/CcbcQO/IdAUwdlr5jzC/P+nDc3s9Y0JWxkBQ7bq2Z0Y Y9DVDZGCtODj+NJrEHFLLpSGSUwoIQVhkS9KRGSA=
X-Quarantine-ID: <jZYPKiL0hWy3>
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at a2.tigertech.net
Received: from [192.168.128.43] (unknown [50.225.209.66]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4FQRmL0c9xz6G9Rl; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 10:06:40 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: hampering progress
To: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>, 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>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <1e150d1b-328f-071d-77a1-9cb7824abbd4@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2021 13:06:39 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <58650505-ce3c-e99f-fdf8-89e52ccb185e@mtcc.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/ntoB4IQaxgDQZ89ejsQNYg3hhpc>
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 17:06:49 -0000

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.)

Yours,
Joel

On 4/21/2021 12:47 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
> 
> On 4/20/21 10:26 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>
>> Every WG Chair, especially for a WG that has tight focus on a specific 
>> goal, meets the problem of potentially off-charter discussions that 
>> potentially hamper progress.
> 
> This is an often repeated refrain, but I question its actual impact. 
> People reply to things because they have an opinion and are interested 
> enough in the subject to make time for it. Posing this as a zero sum 
> game is a fallacy: if they aren't interested enough at the business at 
> hand they simply won't reply at all. At some point things become noise, 
> but a few messages back and forth is hardly that point. In fact, 
> slightly off topic posts can bring useful insight to working groups, and 
> can be extremely useful for outsiders to understand what is going on. I 
> know of no other way to get that understanding other than simply asking 
> on the working group list. Do you?
> 
> That and to be told by a working group chair *in their capacity* to go 
> away (and away to where? no answer) is dysfunctional, and sends a clear 
> message that interlopers will not be tolerated.
> 
> Mike
>