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

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mark Allman" <mallman@icir.org>
To: <David.Partain@ericsson.com>
Cc: <mpowr@ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 8:19 AM
Subject: 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.)

See, the thing is, reviewers are people, too. Do high quality
reviewers need "help"? As Mark points out, if you have people standing
in meetings and on mailing lists saying "this is wrong, this needs
help, this is misguided...", the WG does not have consensus, even if
all the people saying this are "new". The IETF doesn't have
membership, and IETF WGs don't have membership. When we act like the
reviewers are "outsiders", it seems to me that we go off in the weeds
and try to figure out ways to make insiders pay attention to
outsiders, whether they want to or not.

But it's not about insiders paying attention to outsiders, it's about
listening to people who are willing to help, if you'll only listen.

>
>   * 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".

This WG chair behavior is key.

>
>   * 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).

I think this is absolutely correct. I don't know why it seems more
obvious tonight than previously.

I like the mailing list name (although having the "m" stand for
"management" is wrong), but it feels like we're slipping away from
"empower" and into "power", and we just don't seem to work effectively
when it's a power issuee.

>
> allman

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