Re: [Rfced-future] Appeal: Apparent IAB approval/foregone conclusion of draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-12.txt

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

There is a nit in my message below. The version that the IAB discussed in 
November was draft-carpenter-rfced-iab-charter-03. The changes since then 
do not affect the wording of the IAB charter; they can of course be reviewed in the datatracker.

Regards
    Brian Carpenter
On 06-Mar-22 09:04, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> With regard to draft-carpenter-rfced-iab-charter, note that this is
> a proposed BCP so is subject to IETF consensus and IESG approval.
> The IAB Chair informed me in late November that it had been discussed
> (in its -05 draft) by the IAB.
> 
> The IAB minutes of 2021-11-17 state:
> "During the Last Call, the IAB will make a statement that endorses the changes to the IAB charter in draft-carpenter-rfced-iab-charter."
> 
> That still needs to happen, unless I missed a message.
> 
> Regards
>      Brian Carpenter
> 
> On 06-Mar-22 07:18, John C Klensin wrote:
>> IAB,
>>
>> The announcement of your agenda [1] was sent out within the two
>> hours before I started writing this note.
>> draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-12.txt was posted well under 24
>> hours ago.  Yet the agenda says, as a document update report:
>> 	"Approved for publication:
>> 	draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-12"
>> 	
>> While I have every hope that some version of
>> draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model will be able to be approved by the
>> IAB before the open meeting on March 24, a note from the Editor
>> refers to a "next version" and a note from the Program co-chair
>> suggests further review within the Program.  The latter is
>> included below, with the announcement detailed elided, and
>> includes a copy of the former.
>>
>> If the IAB knew in advance exactly when -12 would be posted,
>> scheduled an emergency meeting immediately after that time, and
>> reviewed and approved it, why was the Program (and especially
>> the Editor and Co-chairs not informed of that so we could stop
>> wasting our time on further reviews and improvements?  Of
>> course, if the IAB did that review, or even a review of -11, and
>> concluded that any additional issues could be sorted out at
>> AUTH48, that would go directly to the importance of the recent
>> Program discussion of what should or should not be allowed at
>> AUTH48, at least without further community review.  The Program
>> has apparently concluded that AUTH48 details or restrictions
>> should be left for future work but, if the IAB intends to push
>> new material in -12 and anything that might appear in any future
>> I-D versions off to that process, it would probably justify
>> reopening that discussion and perhaps focusing it more on
>> non-IETF WG documents.
>>
>> If, as I hope was the case, the inclusion of "-12" in the Agenda
>> was just an editing error, and the IAB simply intended to report
>> on the approval of some version of the I-D, it still seems to me
>> inappropriate to announce approval of a document neither the IAB
>> nor the community have had a chance to review, and, if it is not
>> -12 even a chance to see, unless the IAB intends to accept
>> whatever the Program produces without discussion, even
>> discussion of key oversight issues about the process (see
>> below).  The IAB is supposed to be responsible for the output of
>> its Programs; I hope that responsibility is being taken
>> seriously.
>>
>> In addition:
>>
>> (i) draft-carpenter-rfced-iab-charter is connected with
>> 	the "RFC Editor Model" document but obviously interacts
>> 	with the IAB and its activities.  Does the IAB intend to
>> 	tell the community how it expects to handle that
>> 	document and would not at least an announcement to that
>> 	effect be appropriate during the Open Meeting?  In
>> 	particular, the Agenda indicates that the Program will
>> 	be closed as soon is draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model is
>> 	published.  Should any of the other documents now being
>> 	discussed as part of the Program, that Charter revision
>> 	included, not be finished and published with or before
>> 	the RFC Editor Model, would they then be abandoned?
>> 	Some additional explanation be in order.  If all of
>>     that will be covered comprehensively in the (I assume
>>     forthcoming) IAB report and at the Plenary, and is not
>>     worth mentioning as part of the Open Meeting Agenda,
>>     why not	save a few more minutes and eliminate the
>>     Status Update from the Open Meeting agenda entirely?
>> 	
>> (ii) Watching the mailing list for the Program over the
>> 	last (nearly two) years, doing a very quick review of
>> 	the mail archive, and remembering the discussions that
>> 	led to the Program's creation, suggests that this work
>> 	-- which is more than a collection of administrative and
>> 	procedural changes but might affect the entire community
>> 	and the broader perceptions and future effectiveness of
>> 	the IETF (and IAB and IRTF)-- has been reviewed and
>> 	contributed to by a tiny fraction of that community (or
>> 	even the number of people registered for IETF 113 as of
>> 	the last report on registrations) despite the great
>> 	commitment of the leadership and by several of those
>> 	involved (demonstrated by their extensive postings).
>> 	For IETF Working Groups and documents --on which the
>> 	Program's work process was modeled-- one important
>> 	function of the IESG review, even if it rarely mentioned
>> 	explicitly, is to ensure that a standards track document
>> 	has been reviewed widely enough by parties who might be
>> 	affected.   Does the IAB intend to consider the
>> 	implications of the relatively narrow participation in
>> 	the WG and the fairly narrow range of perspectives the
>> 	participants represent?  Will that analysis be presented
>> 	to the community or does the IAB intend to simply
>> 	approve and announce the Program's outputs without such
>> 	consideration?  And if there is a presentation of the
>> 	decision, will that done in a way that is broadly
>> 	available, made part of the record, and, if necessary,
>> 	subject to a further appeal?
>>
>>
>> Actions requested by this appeal:
>>
>> (1) Do not approve, or announce that you are going to approve,
>> draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model (or any version of it), or any
>> other document under discussion in the Program, before the
>> Program has concluded its work.
>>
>> (2) If the IAB intends to approve whatever the Program produces
>> without doing its own critical review of both the document(s)
>> and the process, particularly the breadth of participation in
>> forming the Program consensus, announce that to the community
>> and put it on the agenda for discussion at the Plenary and/or
>> the Open Meeting, making sure there is time for such a
>> discussion.
>>
>> (3) If the IAB believes that these issue deserve more open
>> discussion with a potentially broader community than the Plenary
>> and Open Meeting agenda would allow for, either schedule an
>> additional meeting session during IETF or schedule an online
>> open workshop to be held before approval.  If the latter, use
>> the same kinds of broad outreach that
>> draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model contemplates for
>> potentially-significant changes... noting that this is the most
>> potentially-significant set of changes made to the RFC Editor
>> Function since its beginnings (as described in RFC 8700).
>>
>> Please note that none of the above requests changes in either
>> the model document nor in the way the Program has operated.  I
>> think it is appropriate that we be at least as careful with how
>> the process is concluded and the documents approved as the
>> community has been in its creation and progress so far.
>>
>> thanks,
>>      john
>>
>>
>> [1]
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/113/materials/agenda-113-iabopen-01
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded Message ----------
>> Date: Saturday, March 5, 2022 13:41 +0100
>> From: Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>
>> To: Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
>> Cc: Internet Architecture Board <[e-mail]>
>> Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Fwd: New Version Notification for
>> draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-12.txt
>>
>> Thank you Peter.
>>
>> Please note that there are a good number of changes made.  I
>> don't think these changes substantially change the consensus
>> established within the group, but people should review them for
>> themselves.
>>
>> Eliot
>>
>> On 05.03.22 04:09, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>> Hi all, this version is my attempt to incorporate all feedback
>>> received during the IAB's community call for comments. If I
>>> have  missed anything, please post to the [e-mail]
>>> list and I  will make the appropriate fixes in the next
>>> version.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>>>
>>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>>> Subject: New Version Notification for
>>> draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-12.txt
>>> Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2022 19:05:19 -0800
>>> From: [e-mail]
>>> To: Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>
>>>
>>>
>>> A new version of I-D, draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-12.txt
>>> has been successfully submitted by Peter Saint-Andre and
>>> posted to the IETF repository.
>>>
>>> Name:        draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model
>>> Revision:    12
>>> Title:        RFC Editor Model (Version 3)
>>> Document date:    2022-03-05
>>> Group:        iab
>>> Pages:        32
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> ---------- End Forwarded Message ----------
>>
>