Re: Thought experiment [Re: Quality of Directorate reviews]

[Nico Williams <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 03:25:40PM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 07-Nov-19 14:48, Nico Williams wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 11:54:59AM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >> Here's a thought experiment.
> >>
> >> Update the standards process such that the approval of Proposed Standard
> >> RFCs, after an IETF last call including some specified cross-area review
> >> requirements, is done by the WG consensus process with the consent of the AD .
> >>
> >> Why would that work? Because it now incents the WG chairs by making them,
> >> in effect, where the buck stops. So the WG chairs and AD (typically
> >> a committee of three) will feel the obligation to get everything
> >> right. And it scales.
> > 
> > So, no more IESG review?  What would we need the IESG for anymore?  It
> > would be gone, I guess?
> 
> Not at all. Firstly, I said *Proposed* Standard. The experiment would leave
> the IESG in charge for Internet Standard. (Also for documents submitted
> outside the WG process, which is rare of course.) And the criterion is
> still IETF rough consensus following an IETF last call. Just trying
> to eliminate a manifest bottleneck.

When most of our documents are PS -when PS is the new Standard!- this
really does mean doing away with IESG review.  Nothing obligates anyone
to do the work to move PS to DS and then S.

> Secondly, they'd still be the authority for chartering, appointing
> WG chairs, appointing directorates, and other aspects of overseeing
> the process. Most of the duties described in RFC 2026 in fact.

Sure, but picking good chairs now becomes essential, but finding chairs
as good as ADs will be difficult.

> > Sure, it will scale better.  But quality will suffer.
> 
> And maybe some documents will spend fewer than, say, 2 years in MISSREF.
> Speed vs quality is indeed a trade-off. In the era of rapid prototyping
> our timescale really looks pretty stupid.

Perhaps so.  But then we'd better find a way to incentivize moving PS
docs to DS and S, or give up the fiction.

> >> [...]. So the WG chairs and AD (typically a committee of three) [...]
> > 
> > Typically one of the ADs is uninvolved with a WG for which the other is
> > responsible, so that would be a committee of two, not three.
> 
> Two WG chairs is almost the norm these days. But yes, the essence of
> the experiment is to reduce the number of people in the decision
> process - and intentionally lower the bar for Proposed Standard closer
> to how it's defined in RFC2026:
>    A Proposed Standard specification is generally stable, has resolved
>    known design choices, is believed to be well-understood, has received
>    significant community review, and appears to enjoy enough community
>    interest to be considered valuable.  However, further experience
>    might result in a change or even retraction of the specification
>    before it advances.
> When I look at some the DISCUSSes I've seen in recent months, I really
> don't think that definition is being applied.

That's a fair observation.  But, too, we could ask the IESG to take a
lighter approach to publication as PS.

> I would also add to my thought experiment a mandatory Implementation
> Status section. That's stronger than RFC2026.

Implementation Status for PS?  But that will drag us into the I-D
stability thread all over again -- it's a catch-22: how can we develop a
protocol, implement it, and test it but not deploy it (despite a very
strong market desire for it) without some sort of I-D stability
mechanism?

Nico
--