Re: hampering progress

Keith Moore <> Wed, 21 April 2021 17:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9274E3A3027 for <>; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 10:20:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.919
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.919 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HICEzpklhace for <>; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 10:20:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 152D93A3026 for <>; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 10:20:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal []) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59B512A76 for <>; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 13:20:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 21 Apr 2021 13:20:19 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=SFzZjgKwPuKbvRq77joz3v+RP960lNahwpULi85lA Bs=; b=YTZf7GjH7orV7PB2Tr1Wsyx8f3qG5CA5DIrlp8MelG0peM178RUEphqbq 2KVgKSzFj5fDH1FNIlqadRfK4I6iEwjro4KyHXxFQIKipqbQ0vfzlryQueabpL+r Nqoj14fnrU8lTcoV2HRITxma0j3F3p13sVJy8HrWDvOxrGT+4VcHxgN1rN0HnqjG BlPPa3/GnhaT72+tITDeJFHbLOMzFZYwEit1c7UfeNdb/UUJyF4tdPUsuk8VlvJi 4lNQ5WHoVW3phfqKWbHgrMR0Knpo4C/TqVvE0wsTxDiz9v2jRMMwRDv2NE7DTM8K 83ZCzd0M8C1Fe9AsGj+6ruDhYCz6Q==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:0l6AYEpHSOCMWRHJx2xfSq8wJC-h8zEITcAl_Scqxa6yMQz7E8D7Vw> <xme:0l6AYEAicSTCkLgK4nOtw4o2lrygO0uLdWc3pj_Oq3bTg81WNMgNJgKGZXSZSdX4x qKPHFZLyruOUg>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrvddtkedguddufecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepuffvfhfhkffffgggjggtgfesth ekredttdefjeenucfhrhhomhepmfgvihhthhcuofhoohhrvgcuoehmohhorhgvsehnvght fihorhhkqdhhvghrvghtihgtshdrtghomheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhephefhuedthe efgfefgffhkeehgfeugfeiudeugeejkeefleelueeiffetfeeuudeunecukfhppeejfedr uddufedrudeiledriedunecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrg hilhhfrhhomhepmhhoohhrvgesnhgvthifohhrkhdqhhgvrhgvthhitghsrdgtohhm
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:0l6AYBtT8AuyN7d-DtKO0QcstTxJgetcIxrX0vKx_f7e-Usk1W52yw> <xmx:0l6AYLYiGkOFWA2DBkjQsZEzAeE-kZcHpv2N2JXfBTCvrWxwakN8lQ> <xmx:0l6AYFFRxb-HYXV97M7-AXqaWvuB4sO-57lp6Llv5vvm4ieRLCPMDA> <xmx:016AYIO4awjwSn8OdE0QnPL0hndgTCfz3ovkcIL6FQq6Ty7CVuvvUg>
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 5295824006C for <>; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 13:20:18 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: hampering progress
References: <> <> <> <> <>
From: Keith Moore <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2021 13:20:17 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2021 17:20:25 -0000

On 4/21/21 1:06 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:

> 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.) 

Concur with Joel on the above.

Also, if you believe that a WG chair is unfairly excluding contributions 
that are within the WG's charter, that seems like grounds for an appeal, 
and differences of opinion about such judgments are one of the reasons 
that we have an appeals process.

In other words, if a dispute can be handled by existing process, trying 
to let that process work might be the best thing to do. If you try the 
process and it doesn't work for whatever reason, maybe there's a bigger 
problem there.

But no matter what the process, some bad decisions, and some disputes, 
are both inevitable.   As long as there is some way to appeal such 
decisions, the fact that chairs sometimes make what seem like bad 
decisions about what's in scope for a group is not by itself an 
indication of a structural flaw.