Re: [spring] Dispute process (Was: Resignation request)

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Tue, 10 March 2020 19:08 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61FDD3A08B9; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 12:08:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id shMzmgIGHngW; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 12:08:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [193.110.157.68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 512053A08B6; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 12:08:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48cPkN52mzzL4T; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 20:08:12 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1583867292; bh=+/tFaWUEtrdoaH4lzda1vP5Fglf1n27Mnf/SxvctsXM=; h=From:Subject:Date:References:Cc:In-Reply-To:To; b=FYr+QOBXPnunOe2RNGG6xRASk5DpB2Sy4PQqAmUUuJnS+gvVR30yT+AkMyNIvxN4f FLfBFI466rRKAHBVLEJFGL5q0C19YrZQCJS9I1g9nj8AADTxi6BlZIb96ABhbbN8wV LrusQAoNAYra8OJILRd3m1ePOOZYaXMah4nxf2Tw=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BOar0Fs3mxTG; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 20:08:11 +0100 (CET)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [76.10.157.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 20:08:11 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [193.111.228.74] (unknown [193.111.228.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 660586020D8F; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 15:08:10 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2020 15:07:53 -0400
Message-Id: <EB49F5CB-1FD1-4FB1-867B-886233E33B38@nohats.ca>
References: <20200310184518.GY18021@localhost>
Cc: Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme.net>, Alex Bogdanov <bogdanov=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>, SPRING WG List <spring@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <20200310184518.GY18021@localhost>
To: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (17D50)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/yR11vmagSFmBgUS5dCL45WuIfZo>
Subject: Re: [spring] Dispute process (Was: Resignation request)
X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG \(SPRING\)" <spring.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spring/>
List-Post: <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2020 19:08:17 -0000

On Mar 10, 2020, at 14:45, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> wrote:

> What I've encountered is that at the limit you have to appeal or give
> up, and how well things go before you get to that stage depends on how
> willing WG chairs and responsible AD are to actively mediate dispute
> resolution.
> 
> The case I felt went really badly was the TLS DNSSEC extension.  

I agree and while that case was bad, what’s worse is that no post-mortem was done here. I don’t think the IETF as an organization will take any lesson from this, and that in itself makes it likely the same mistakes will be made again.

> So there was no question of appeal, really.  

I think also because in the appeal some of the same actors would appear. 

> Not sure how to make it better, except maybe thus: it should be possible
> to get a review of how a dispute was resolved not so much as an appeal,
> but as a way to remediate problems to help alleviate _next_ dispute.


Going back to this thread, when I read the subject of resignation and the first email, it seemed like I just stumbled across a hallway fight - people that demand unreasonable things. I don’t know how this conflict went from nothing to asking for someone’s resignation but clearly more people should have been involved earlier to de-escalate this. maybe that was tried and just not visible here? It would be good if there had been some kind of log that could have been referenced so we could determine why this failed to de-escalate.

Paul