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

David-

You definately raise a whole lot of good questions (probably better
suited for ICAR, but...).  Thanks!

But, I want to say a few words about this...

> 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.

I am not sure I agree with this...

  * First, if the WG and the reviewers are 180-degrees different in
    their thinking then it would seem as if the WG chair could
    reasonably say that there is no consensus.  That would assume that
    the reviewers would then work closely with the WG to fix things (or,
    they wouldn't be part of the WG consensus determination).  That may
    or may not happen -- sort of depends on what the early review
    mechanism looks like.

  * Given a high quality review team it would seem as though the WG
    would ignore the reviewers at their own peril.  Take a hot-button
    sort of issue like congestion control.  If the reviewers said "hey,
    you need some congestion control or this won't fly" (with a few more
    words, etc.) and the WG says "nope, we don't want it, we don't need
    it, we can't have it" and the consensus of the WG is to forward the
    document to the IESG then it isn't a "late surprise", rather it's a
    "late problem" of the WG's creation when the IESG sends the document
    back.  I would think that when the WG and the reviewers are
    completely at odds it could be the WG chair's job to try to work
    through the issues.  (Maybe bring in more reviewers or bring in an
    AD or IAB member or other senior IETFer to try to explain the
    rational behind some objection (e.g., "must have CC").  It would
    behoove the WG to work with the reviewers in the long run, I think.
    (And, yes, sometimes that is going to be tough for the WG to
    understand.) 

  * If the WG is stubborn and shoots the document to the IESG anyway
    then the early review doesn't necessarily help with the "IESG
    overload" problem.  But, it seems that early
    cross-area/functional/whatever review could well present
    opportunities to work out issues earlier rather than later.  And,
    WGs (and, specifically, WG chairs) should be wise enough to attempt
    to work through the issues and not just say "we disagree".

  * In the blatant cases where the WG chair does not try to work through
    the issues then the IESG overload problem can be helped by the IESG
    replacing the WG chair.

Maybe we are thinking about authority a little to much.  Maybe we should
be thinking in terms of collaboration and seeing how far that will take
us (a theme others have raised repeatedly).

allman

--
Mark Allman -- ICIR -- http://www.icir.org/mallman/

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