Re: [Iotops] Martin Duke's Block on charter-ietf-iotops-00-17: (with BLOCK)

Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com> Wed, 03 February 2021 19:35 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: iotops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: iotops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E20813A10D2; Wed, 3 Feb 2021 11:35:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 doNbadvjz14Z; Wed, 3 Feb 2021 11:35:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-il1-x131.google.com (mail-il1-x131.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::131]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1896B3A10C1; Wed, 3 Feb 2021 11:35:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-il1-x131.google.com with SMTP id z18so330985ile.9; Wed, 03 Feb 2021 11:35:36 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=9/Uk6HuFhKcon6SqXTMKIiFgQYzQ0U7y6GKYXcTG2vI=; b=P6TK9OaDl3jCh01QZMkMIQzY1viUxCNw6EKfiiqrZUpZbffS53g0CBtRid/tfMkd3R 7HIMWzSu/wvstYZJeUJlGdZvhWaC1htFj4Q/LttW2QMMIUPwbR4TSIrhtEO6ONZhuDLh VTWkJ4+L3mMbui91kFtZ9aDPDdZIuc8ByE739jjvgDY9gupni67G9NFWQKntj6ryEDf+ 84vSTrcup0ytZLDNoyHP+wmMl+aTcu8MwpqBdn0wzHvfoHu+/lI8+9W3OcQD0Tz2J/SL 9pEHDWBwbPVagWc6i2Nz5+4vcP1FOvXwUE6nspwJtLtshDYgzTr+YgGo0Q5ZrPloIgNa IWkw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=9/Uk6HuFhKcon6SqXTMKIiFgQYzQ0U7y6GKYXcTG2vI=; b=Y9USVhw2hX51gqArURoYIYy9efZomGqn1PQ9YEkgFp3MSSBRwI4gCEwF67fRnImEUd wzxpva9usGC1UJjc/eVbgpUyYh5iRXohAm2tfCHMYrEpB5ylnAuaxUL6BODp94VwXMeR wUoIcdbdasPphiF/2u2S5Og1QtLSWP8s62PTGd5WGx3htuLl9pBZeJDDVov9QFdYprZD 4MknvmX98dH2y5Qo7ewQIBcaYMfItvHkCrN8KIOYoOIz/RO+O8bcm5UorOZP3EZCs8EJ 1YIKelKV33n+9vjyCX7ogO7csIRw14KoVe59QEOBQLEfiw6xupgooZh6j+LuP3uMmVN4 eIvA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5305/Eb8Wvkl3K5zvnzLun44HSwGDGP8tz9iiMJ+5scVGPgdyCYo lpbNu1UV4nXvtYuEw9+tAywg2DXl8u99LF4UyqI=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxG78o/SfOid3/N8YL5af0kf0p2aLEGGGM5dIP615RWvj/julzV0fnhEkV6uq7YFzbSHX27djg0T0wRy1F9KCA=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:1185:: with SMTP id y5mr3891575ili.237.1612380935386; Wed, 03 Feb 2021 11:35:35 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <161237796111.9705.9707026334703340484@ietfa.amsl.com> <CALaySJJuru4j85RUsTGCPB0yyHpLJyiDprFN2dJ92YJvGSwuiw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJJuru4j85RUsTGCPB0yyHpLJyiDprFN2dJ92YJvGSwuiw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2021 11:35:30 -0800
Message-ID: <CAM4esxRyoOBcaBCq1Nn1HoCvB5Sjdyhyp8qpG8amySV6PybbdA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, iotops-chairs@ietf.org, iotops@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e57a3005ba73b0dc"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iotops/SmRrzdYnt2B9kuQZmkBDRcH7r6E>
Subject: Re: [Iotops] Martin Duke's Block on charter-ietf-iotops-00-17: (with BLOCK)
X-BeenThere: iotops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IOT Operations <iotops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/iotops>, <mailto:iotops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/iotops/>
List-Post: <mailto:iotops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:iotops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iotops>, <mailto:iotops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2021 19:35:44 -0000

That sounds like a satisfactory solution to me.

On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 11:25 AM Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> wrote:

> I don't know how this happened, but I accidentally sent the following
> to Martin along, rather than to the list:
>
> --------------------------------
> I look at it the other way: I think we're often being too restrictive,
> and that we should charter *more* working groups of this nature.  I
> really don't understand the objection to it.
>
> We've tried doing this in different ways, with things like the
> Exploratory Groups experiment, but changes like that aren't well
> understood and don't tend to succeed.  But just putting it into the
> Working Group context with goals that are still clear but less
> concrete seems workable (and is working in MOPS, for example).
>
> Lars moved in that sort of direction for the IRTF when he chaired it,
> and it worked: go do your work for a year, and if it looks right at
> that point, you're official.  I think that for working groups it's
> better to make the charter official and kill it after a year if it's
> not working, but it amounts to something close to the same thing.
> --------------------------------
>
> In a resultant exchange with Martin, he noted to me the lack of
> clarity on "if it looks right", and I see the point there.  Maybe we
> can have a few more words about how we can evaluate the success of the
> working group if it does not produce documents under charter scope
> items (3) or (4)?  I could get behind that, if we don't wrap ourselves
> around an axle about it.
>
> Barry
>
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 1:46 PM Martin Duke via Datatracker
> <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
> >
> > Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for
> > charter-ietf-iotops-00-17: Block
> >
> > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> > introductory paragraph, however.)
> >
> >
> >
> > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-iotops/
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > BLOCK:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > I hate to do this the second time through, but I'm happy to clear it
> after the
> > telechat after a brief discussion makes it clear I am very wrong...
> >
> > I recognize that this WG is more focused on discussion and sharing that
> more
> > standards-directed ones, but I'm a bit uncomfortable with the
> open-endedness of
> > the charter. While there are bounds on the scope, there are no real
> success
> > criteria that we can use to evaluate this WG after a certain period of
> time.
> >
> > Would it be worthwhile to BoF this first to set some basic milestones
> for this
> > WG? Do we already have these milestones in someone's head, that we can
> write
> > down?
> >
> >  I definitely support formation of a WG with this theme, with a little
> >  tightening as described above.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>