Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: BCP 83 PR-Action Against Dan Harkins

[Keith Moore <[e-mail]>]

On 10/3/22 10:20, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:

>     In a normal Last Call, anyone is free to object without significant
>     reprisal.    In this case, anyone can see that by objecting they'd be
>     courting disfavor from those in power.   That's not a consensus
>     call at
>     all.
>
>
> I don't agree with the premise.  Any Last Call is in essence a 
> statement that the IESG is preparing to take some action it believes 
> is appropriate and justified, and wants (or, if you prefer, is 
> required) to test community consensus on that decision.  That could be 
> a WG being chartered, a document approaching readiness for publication 
> as an RFC, or a PR action for which supporting evidence appears to 
> exist.  This is no different.

I disagree.  Most of our Last Calls are about whether the community 
should endorse publication of a particular document. It's a big deal, 
and the stakes are often high, as people have often invested years of 
their work lives in writing such a document.   But usually the biggest 
consequence of the Last Call evaluation is whether the document becomes 
a consensus document or an informational or experimental one.   There's 
long been a strong sense from the community that IETF has an obligation 
to publish working group output in some form; that working groups, at 
least, should not labor for years and then have their labor discarded. 
(I generally agree.)

This proposed action is different.  Whether or not it's warranted, it's 
clearly a personal attack on Dan.  IESG has made its intentions clear.   
It isn't acting as any sort of neutral-ish party.  And I certainly feel 
like I'm putting my neck on the chopping block (metaphorically) by even 
discussing this PR-action without stating support for it.  I've received 
several private emails insisting that I'm wrong for stating an opinion 
about it because I'm "in the rough", as if we aren't supposed to think 
and speak for ourselves but instead fall in with the herd.

I do believe and appreciate that IESG is following the prescribed 
process; that doesn't mean that I think it's wise or constructive or 
helpful to the community for IESG to try this.   I'm trying to reserve 
final judgment, though, until I finish a detailed review of all of the 
documents cited in the Last Call.

>
> I also don't particularly care for the insinuation that there might be 
> reprisals ("disfavor") if the community decides the IESG got it 
> wrong.  If the consensus goes against this action, then we'll just end 
> up having to figure out where we go from here.  That presumes a lack 
> of integrity.  Were I to engage in such reprisals, I would expect to 
> be recalled.

Thanks for the clarification.

Keith