Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists")

Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net> Thu, 29 November 2012 22:37 UTC

Return-Path: <gih@apnic.net>
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 B62FA21F89A2 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:37:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QDubn49KD5dB for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:37:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from asmtp.apnic.net (asmtp.apnic.net [IPv6:2001:dc0:2001:11::199]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CFA321F8954 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:37:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 2001-44b8-1121-1a00-3448-34ba-4195-613f.static.ipv6.internode.on.net (2001-44b8-1121-1a00-3448-34ba-4195-613f.static.ipv6.internode.on.net [IPv6:2001:44b8:1121:1a00:3448:34ba:4195:613f]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by asmtp.apnic.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1AF3B6745; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 08:37:05 +1000 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
Subject: Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists")
From: Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net>
In-Reply-To: <m2hao82jtj.wl%randy@psg.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 09:37:04 +1100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3488E0C6-726E-4D75-BDEB-03DA5401A0F6@apnic.net>
References: <2671C6CDFBB59E47B64C10B3E0BD5923033897C9BF@PRVPEXVS15.corp.twcable.com> <CALaySJLT=6RTZahqB1LO_Aw=7sAMiyrXK=xacwrBgLieZhqeDw@mail.gmail.com> <2671C6CDFBB59E47B64C10B3E0BD59230338A657EC@PRVPEXVS15.corp.twcable.com> <CALaySJ+1LX6kzpDZYwQaJAqkzH4zLdRoMaJNH9HcHQG-78jA7Q@mail.gmail.com> <50B7BB68.4050807@gmail.com> <m2hao82jtj.wl%randy@psg.com>
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org list" <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 22:37:08 -0000

On 30/11/2012, at 8:14 AM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:

>> I'll note that it seems possible that overspecifying process
>> could potentially cause more protests rather than fewer.
> 
> or good folk just walking away.  there is a reason we are at the ietf
> and not the itu.  rule obsessed and process hidebound is probably not
> the most productive use of smart folks' time.
> 

On the other hand any organised social activity is organised by virtue of the adoption
of a common set of "norms" about the behaviour of individuals - we call em "rules"
and "processes", but the purpose is common. To what extent the activity is tolerant
of exceptions, and to what extent the group activity is capable of self
examination and evolution in the light of such exceptions is critical for longevity.

Rigid systems tend to ossify while flexible systems tend to adapt.

So for me its not that the ITU is any more rule and processed obsessed than the IETF's WGs. 
I'm sure we could all cite instances all along the spectrum of behaviour in both
forums. The distinction for me is the ability of the forum to undertake
self examination and evolve the rules and processes in the light of what may have
originally been seen as exceptional behaviour.

Geoff