[Pesci-discuss] Driving proposals

--Margaret wrote, in part:

>>   - it's not realistic to assume the author of such a
>>   proposal would drive it through all by him/herself.
>
> This can be said of virtually all proposals in the IETF
> (including technical ones).  Without a critical mass of people
> who are willing to work on a given proposal, the proposal
> won't go forward.
>
> I don't see why process proposals should be an exception to
> this...

Margaret,

I don't see why process proposals should be different either. 
But let's examine what makes them different.  Suppose I show up 
with a technical proposal that I want to drive forward.  I 
discuss it with an AD or two, feel out interest in a WG, or 
maybe work with a group of colleagues as a design team to move 
it forward on a non-WG path.  While there have been exceptions, 
I've found that ADs, and others, who are consulted about such 
things are helpful and constructive.  If my ideas are 
brain-damaged, I'm told that, but it comes with an explanation 
of why I need treatment.  And, if they are merely weak, there is 
a dialog about how they can be made better.

Now, let's compare that to what has happened to several process 
proposals recently.  A significant fraction of the IESG lines 
up, either at microphones or on mailing lists, and delivers a 
message that amounts to "can't work, won't work, and, even if it 
could work, we wouldn't support it because it would change the 
way we do things" (I know I'm exaggerating a bit, but only a 
bit).  While, unlike Pekka, I considered the Pesci BOF 
discussion mostly constructive, I have un-fond memories of 
newtrk sessions in which IESG members have lined up to make 
speeches, controlling the microphone sufficiently in practice to 
squeeze out any ideas.  The amount of constructive dialogue, 
with suggestions coming from the IESG members stating the 
objections has been, well, minimal.

While there are some other differences (and I very much agree 
with several of the comments Ted made yesterday) _that_, IMO, is 
why process proposals are different from technical ones right 
now.   If a proposal isn't going anywhere without IESG support, 
and the IESG appears to go on the attack when it appears, there 
is little point in trying to pursue it further.

    john

_______________________________________________
Pesci-discuss mailing list
Pesci-discuss@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pesci-discuss