Re: [mpowr] Re: Getting Bad Ideas to Fail Early

Hi,

I'm going to snip liberally...

> On Sun, 11 Jan 2004, James Kempf wrote:
[snip snip]
jk> Does anybody else have any thoughts about how to reconcile
jk> consensus-based decision making with failing bad ideas early?

On Monday 12 January 2004 23.43, Alex Rousskov wrote:
[snip snip]
ar> If not, then early review is the best we can do to kill bad ideas
ar> early.

My take on this topic: Yes, we absolutely need to have some
mechanism(s) in place for early review.  This would be useful
both for pruning Bad Stuff and for improving Good Stuff.

That said, this won't be even remotely trivial.  I just don't
see how we can get away from the fact that that would require
a set of experienced people outside the WG who can provide an
"IESG-like" review at semi-regular intervals in a document's
path through the WG.  But those reviews must also have
"IESG-like" weight, or the exercise may indeed be pointless.
We seem to be loathe to giving anyone this kind of weight for
fear of introducing yet another group of IETF insiders who can
act with impunity...

Compounding the problem is that I just don't see where we'll
find all of these experienced people whose employers are willing
to sponsor this work or who're willing to read IDs instead of
reading to their kids.  I'd rather read The Cat in the Hat
anytime :-)

And then there's the A Word...  If we have the goal of killing
"bad" ideas early in the process, someone (or ones) has to have
the authority to do so, (hopefully) backed by WG concensus.
If we don't invest the reviewers with some sort of veto power,
and the WG can just tell 'em to find the nearest lake, what's
the point?  That strikes me as a collosal waste of everyone's
time.  Human nature ensures that if a review body returns
a _Bad_ verdict to a working group, they're going to put up
a fight.  "Did you call my baby ugly!? Them's fightin' words!"
It's just inevitable.  I don't have the faintest idea how to
reconcile the need for someone to say, "Stop that now!" and
the WG's concensus decision that it's great stuff.

So, I'd love to see early review, but ...

Who will a working group listen to?  They currently must
listen to the IESG.  Is the IETF willing to invest reviewers
with similar weight?

Where are these fabled reviewers?  Does nomcom have to find
them?  Do they volunteer and go through a screening process?  Can
they be "fired"?

What do we do if the WG refuses to acknowledge that an idea is
"bad" and forges ahead?  Won't that likely mean it'll just get
bounced back by the IESG?

  - Do we say, "Appeal to the IESG"?  My guess is that this
    will happen _every single time_.  That's not suddenly
    going to lighten the load of an AD...

  - Do we add a note to their IESG file saying "This WG is doing
    stupid stuff but won't listen to us.  You get to deal with it
    when it gets to you."?  That strikes me as pretty pointless.

What role do(es) the chair(s) have in all of this?  Are they
simply the messenger between the reviewers and the working
group?  The advocate of the consensus decision?

To reiterate:  I think we need this.  I just don't know if we
(the IETF) are willing to do what it seems to imply -- give
someone besides the IESG veto power.

Cheers,

David

_______________________________________________
mpowr mailing list
mpowr@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr