Re: [vwrap] Status and future of the VWRAP working group

[Morgaine <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Barry.  That's what I assumed the IETF wants, documents reflecting
the group's technical progress and working towards a consensus, not
documents as an end in themselves even when they do not reflect any
consensus.

We had a round of documents produced by one or more parties who openly and
explicitly confirmed to us here that *interoperation between VWs was not
intended*, but only belatedly after the group exerted intense pressure to
make the issue clear.  Obtaining that fact has been like drawing blood from
a stone, instead of reading an openly stated requirement.

That's how far the documents process has got us so far, and it has been very
unhelpful for the group's progress, effectively wasting some years of our
lives with very little to show for our time and effort.  Let's not let that
happen again.

We need a group consensus on this core issue before we can even begin to
think about documents again, because the nature of most of our documents is
entirely dependent on that choice.


On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>wrote:

>
> That said, we need to be leading this discussion on consensus that can
> be documented and posted.  And we need to focus on that and accomplish
> it soon, for a vague but near-term value of "soon".
>


Here, here! :-)


Morgaine.




==========================

On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>wrote:

> I have no time this week, during IETF week, to respond in detail.  And
> I'll be on vacation next week.  I'll try to give a full response when
> I get back home, after 8 April.  But something quick now:
>
> > Notwithstanding that the IETF places certain duties on Barry and others
> to
> > ensure that there is visible progress in the form of documents, I must
> say
> > that "documents at all costs" is not a particularly good way of achieving
> > technical progress.
>
> So people don't misunderstand, here:  documents are what the IETF
> produces.  Therefore, in the end, we need to have documents.  On the
> way there, we need to see progress.  We ultimately measure progress by
> finished documents, and sometimes measure progress along the way by
> progress on documents.  Productive discussion is good, too.
>
> Don't interpret from this that the only thing I or the ADs care about
> are getting documents cranked out "at all costs".  The problem is that
> we haven't had any progress in a long time, and we need to push things
> along.  We can talk forever; I know that.  That talk *eventually* has
> to turn into documents, or we might as well close the working group
> and just let people chat on the mailing list.
>
> That's why I'm pushing for some visible progress on at least one
> document, the introduction/overview one.  I'm not suggesting that we
> should be posting documents with individual opinions, at the expense
> of group consensus.  What I'm saying is that if, as a group, we can't
> talk a bit, tease consensus out of that, write that consensus down,
> and post it as a draft proposal... then we're being ineffective.
>
> There's enough going on here that we're not going to shut things down
> on 10 April because nothing's been posted.
>
> That said, we need to be leading this discussion on consensus that can
> be documented and posted.  And we need to focus on that and accomplish
> it soon, for a vague but near-term value of "soon".
>
> Barry, as chair
> (Now, my attention is back to the PLASMA BoF....)
> _______________________________________________
> vwrap mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>