Re: [mpowr] WG Formation

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

JCK> I think your proposal and mine are largely compatible.

oh, you optimist, you...


JCK> I think there should be a number of different ways of getting to
JCK> a WG and that _any_ model through which all pre-WGs and WGs must 
JCK> go is an invitation to getting ourselves bogged down in 
JCK> procedural nonsense and rigidity rather than keeping the focus 
JCK> on getting the job done.

I think we have a meaningful difference, here.

By their nature, rules are Procrustean.  Hence, rules should be created
only when the tradeoffs among flexibility, efficiency, quality
and the like all warrant it.  In this case, I think we have a very
serious problem with wasteful formation of unproductive working groups.

So, the rule is a very straightforward way of moving the cost of
wastefulness to be outside of IETF concern. It creates a simple and
entirely relevant admission criterion: To get chartered for doing IETF
work, a group much demonstrate that it is already _able_ to do IETF work.

Of the alternatives you list, some are in fact not so good.  For example, an
IRTF activity may or may not be productive as an IETF effort, so I'm not
inclined to use the IRTF history as an automatic ticket to working group
status.  Some IRTF efforts do show the necessary qualities, but others
do not. Dealing with this is simple: subject it to the same requirements
as all other efforts.  For a good effort, the previous IRTF effort will
make satisfying the criteria I list trivial.


JCK> That isn't an exclusive list -- I imagine that there might be a
JCK> half-dozen other options that would make sense occasionally --

Fuzzy procedures and criteria invite sloppy, wasteful action. Since this
is what we have been seeing regularly, in working group formation, we
need to make sure that an effort to fix the problem really does fix it.

We should only make rules that respond to a demonstrated need, but the
rules should be as simple and clear and precise as we can make them.

As Bert notes, in reality I'm only documenting an established good
practise.  The problem has been not enough adherence to it.

And let's be clear about the 'rigidity' that I am proposing.  Note that
the actual assessment of productivity is unspecified.  _That_ is where
it makes sense to use the typically fuzzy rough-consensus approach, not
in the basic procedure.


JCK> In these troubled times, there is also two risks inherent in
JCK> lots of pre-BOF work: (i) if a small, semi-private, group holds 
JCK> a lot of discussions and formulates a position, any IETF review, 
JCK> even if it occurs the day after chartering, is likely to be 
JCK> "late" review in terms of its interactions with already-hardened

First of all, the requirement I offered for pre-IETF work is that it be
conducted in an IETF manner.  This means open and flexible, as well as
productive.

Second of all, we already have that issue in many situations, which
means we already have ways of dealing the problem you list. So, either a
group that wishes IETF assistance and imprimateur is willing to conduct
itself according to IETF requirements, or it isn't.


JCK> positions.  (ii) And such discussions may not be subject to IETF 
JCK> IPR provisions which could lead to some interesting ways to 
JCK> plant time bombs.

We are stuck with that reality, no matter what.


JCK>   We could protect against some of that by 
JCK> being aggressive about the "formative efforts" listing you 
JCK> suggest, but such a listing would be taken by many groups (and 
JCK> their publicists) as IETF endorsement of

John, perhaps you have noticed that _any_ action is subject to political
exploitation. The only way to avoid such exploitation is to be invisible
and inactive.

We simply cannot let fear of external stupidity and abuse dominate our
thinking and working.

If we think something is reasonable and productive, in its own right,
then it is what we should do. If others choose to be stupid or nasty or
exploitive about it, that is their problem and the problem of anyone who
believes them.


JCK> In no case do I think we can afford to get ourselves into a "if
JCK> you manage to jump through the following hoops, you are entitled 
JCK> to have a WG,

I agree completely.  My suggestion was for steps that should be
necessary.  But, no, they are not sufficient by themselves.

They are designed to provide highly relevant input to the formation
decision process, not to replace that process.


and now for something completely different...

WBB> Interestingly, those two questions and actions is what many (if not all) ADs
WBB> ask and want to see before approving a BOF. Some people do not like that...
WBB> but... such is life.
WBB> So it seems we are doing the right thing?

Bert, Your note triggers two lines of reaction from me:

1. Established Practise

If the IESG were typically imposing the requirements I listed, then we
would not be experiencing wasteful BOFs and wasteful working group
startup "thrashing". Since we do, in fact, _frequently_ experience both
of these problems, then no, it is not what all (or possibly even most)
ADs do.

Some do, yes.

In fact, my intent was merely to document and require practise that I
have viewed as long-used and effective. The problem has been with its
inconsistent application.


2. Response from an AD

Since I have not yet done IETF work that interacted with you, I am
intrigued by your note. My lack of first-person experience with you is
tempered by extremely consistent comments from others that you are an
excellent AD.

From what I can determine, you in particular have nothing to be
defensive about. Yet I take your note frankly to be defensive.

(I apologize for making this personal, but I do not know any other way
to broach this specific topic and I think the topic of IESG
participation in these discussions is absolutely fundamental to the
question of making improvements in IETF timeliness and productivity. My
own view is that John K's trust/distrust proposals go at exactly this
issue. So my response, here, is really a plea: We must find a way to
have IESG members engaged in these discussions without our attacking
them and with their being candid with us. Defensive or hostile tone or
content are simply not productive.)

Clearly "we are doing the right thing" is not correct. "We" the IESG, and
"We" the IETF, frequently are _not_ doing the right thing.  "Some", yes.
"All", no.

In particular, "not enough".  Not nearly enough.

The IETF has established a very damaging pattern with working group
formation, conduct and output. All three are highly problematic. Not
every working group, of course. But enough to prompt the crisis that we
have been trying to address for two years. Yet those two years have
produced virtually no significant progress in improving any of them.


d/
--
 Dave Crocker <dcrocker-at-brandenburg-dot-com>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <www.brandenburg.com>
 Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:[phone]>


_______________________________________________
mpowr mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr