Re: [Pesci-discuss] Growing concerns about PESCI

On Fri, Oct 28, 2005 07:50:10PM -0400, Leslie Daigle allegedly wrote:
> I really hate to beat a dead horse, but not quite so
> much as I hate being misunderstood.

Boy, do I know that feeling!

> A bit of my message that you chose not to quote and
> therefore I assume overlooked:
> 
> >On the "-discuss" list, the lead of the design team has asked
> >folks to hash through issues, review the document, and contribute
> >brain trust. 
> 
> 
> Why are people talking on this list?  In a WG, one contributes
> to the WG effort, which has a *charter*, and if the design
> team fails to listen to the WG, it is (one hopes) fired,
> and the WG finds a different way to solve its chartered
> problem.  *That's* why we post to WG lists, right?  We're
> part of the work.
> 
> Here, we're all just yakking.
> 
> Which is fine, as long as we *all* remember that.
> 
> Some people are here because they care about the outcome,
> and will discuss it in any available venue.  Fine.
> 
> Some people are *not* here, even though they care about
> the outcome, because they know this list is just a "-discuss"
> list.
> 
> Which is fine, as long as we *all* remember that, too.
> 
> Leslie.

OK, that all makes sense.  Is the point, here and below, that there is
nothing to measure the output of the "design team" against?  If so, I
agree that there's nothing external.  The draft sets up its own goals
and measures.  Now the community has to make an evaluation, first of
those measures.  In fact, the point of bringing up all those
principles is to clarify the community's conceptual framework for
evaluating both the PESCI work and what will come after.  Am I any
closer to understanding what you're saying?  Time to let this go and
do it in person?

Scott

> 
> Scott W Brim wrote:
> >(limiting to pesci-discuss)
> >
> >On Tue, Oct 25, 2005 12:53:53PM -0400, Leslie Daigle allegedly wrote:
> >
> >>The big difference is -- there is absolutely no piece of IETF
> >>standards process that *requires* that the "design team" listen to any
> >>of the points provided on the "-discuss" list.  There is a tacit
> >>requirement, in that one presumes the appropriate AD will be recalled if
> >>the result is clearly and obviously out of step with what the community
> >>asks, but that's a high-risk negative motivation.
> >
> >
> >First, there is no piece of IETF standards process that requires a WG
> >design team to listen to WG discussion either.  They can reject it, in
> >which case their solution will likely be rejected.  Second, since
> >PESCI has no power, what is the concern?  
> >
> >
> >>So, a genuine question:  is PESCI blurring lines, or does
> >>this suggest that we have in fact given up on WGs/our process?
> >
> >
> >I don't know that PESCI blurs lines, but it clearly doesn't fit in the
> >existing ones.  However, that doesn't have to mean that we have given
> >up on our process yet.  I certainly hope not :-).
> >

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