Re: [Rfced-future] A voice from the rough (was: Re: Program Last Call Results and Next Steps)

Hi John,

I don’t know how rough rough has to be to be really rough, but I find myself somewhere in the long grass, if not with you, then close enough to be considered not on the fairway. (And I wish we would stop using sporting metaphors that have no meaning to people who don't share our cultural heritage!)

Like you, John, I feel I have had my say earlier in the process and that to bring the issues up again would be to relitigate discussions. In any case, I lack the energy to repeat myself to an unwilling audience. Thus, I kept quiet during this last call.

I continue to regret the view of clever people who are experts in their field that other fields about which they know little can be solved by a committee of like-minded individuals rather than delegation to an established expert with whom they disagree. I have seen this mode operate to failure in other environments, and no doubt comparisons with the Committee of Public Safety are extreme, but I continue to worry about where this is all going.

I do hope this turns out for the best, and I do admire the effort and strength demonstrated by key participants.

Adrian

-----Original Message-----
From: Rfced-future <rfced-future-bounces@iab.org> On Behalf Of John C Klensin
Sent: 31 January 2022 19:56
To: Eliot Lear <lear@lear.ch>; rfced-future@iab.org
Cc: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>; Brian Rosen <br@brianrosen.net>
Subject: [Rfced-future] A voice from the rough (was: Re: Program Last Call Results and Next Steps)

--On Monday, January 31, 2022 12:22 +0100 Eliot Lear
<lear@lear.ch> wrote:

> Dear all,
> 
> Program last call has now closed.
> 
> We received one set of editorial comments from Brian
> Carpenter.  I want to detail the proposed changes here, and
> their disposition for the next draft, which we are asking
> Peter to post now.  Once posted, we will forward that draft
> to the IAB for further processing.
>...

Eliot,

I deliberately deferred sending this note until after the Last
Call closed and you wrote your note.  It is clear to me that I
am in the rough on several issues and will likely be even after
the next stages of the process are complete and I do not have
any desire to, to use your term, relitigate long-settled issues
or otherwise restart the conversation.   However, I think it is
important to get this view on the record at this point.

>From this minority point of view, I believe there are two key
points from which we have walked away (or compromised our way
away from)...

(1) The RFC Series survived and served the community well for
nearly a half-century because of some fundamental commonalities
(or, if you will, "principles") that provided functional and
coherent leadership and operation over those years even as
things evolved.  One was consistent and clear leadership and, to
a significant extent, authority and accountability in the hands
of a single individual at a time.  Over that period, the
individuals who held that role (at least on other than a
temporary/interim basis) were either technical publications
experts or someone who understood the limitations of his
knowledge and was willing and able to reach out to such experts
when needed and pay attention to that advice.  While there were
clearly disadvantages to that approach, it did work and one of
the reasons for it is, fwiw, consistent with why the LLC has a
single Executive Director with considerable authority rather
than being run by a committee or multiple committees with no one
person having significant authority or accountability.

(2) The IETF's way of doing things, including its working
groups, leadership, and management structure, works well because
the vast majority of participants are experts in the subject
matter to which they try to contribute.  People with opinions
but no clue are typically swiftly weeded out or simply ignored.
However, we tend to assume that, because those mechanisms work
well for Internet engineering issues, they will work at least
equally well (with the same participants) for entirely unrelated
topics.    In the particular case of a model built around an
RSWG whose participants are IETF participants with the expertise
profile of IETF technical participants, I am confident that the
RFC Series will evolve in the direction that the consensus of
those participants determines... but, because of those expertise
and perspective issues, not necessarily in directions that are
best for the Internet and its users.

As I said, I know I'm in the rough and I hope I'm wrong about
where this may lead.  But, in case things do not work as well
and smoothly as the Program seems to expect, perhaps the above
will be useful as both a cautionary note and part of a starting
point for whatever might come next.

best regards,
   john

-- 
Rfced-future mailing list
Rfced-future@iab.org
https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future