You point out the inherent weakness of the IETF scheme. The
ineffectiveness of the mailing list discussions means that the real
decisions get pushed out to a cabal and the rest of the group feel
alienated and in the case of MARID went on to wreck the proposal.
Chaos leaves the decision making to a cabal.
Mailing lists and even face-to-face meetings require structure to run
effectively. Most large face-to-face organizational run by Robert's
Rules of Order. Similar processes could and should be created in an
e-mail forum.
I've seen a few well run e-mail groups (IETF and else where) work
through the decision making processes in steps that gradually, but on a
known timescale, converge on decisions. So, any form of communication is
fine, process is what's critical. A conference call or a mailing list
needs a moderator that enforces some level of focus.
Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-mailsig(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org
[mailto:owner-ietf-mailsig(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of
Atul(_dot_)Sharma(_at_)nokia(_dot_)com
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 10:41 AM
To: pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com; gmgross(_at_)nac(_dot_)net
Cc: william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net; ietf-mailsig(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: Ways to proceed
While it is justified that equal opportunity not be given to
all, as only 4-5 max people are actually effective. But it is
not justified that these 4-5 effective people make the
decision. You justify exclusion and equal opportunity in same breath.
I do agree that functioning at IETF slows down, if not
totally prevent, acceptance of new ideas, equal opportunity
to new comers or those who are not part of cliques. But what
you suggest does not sound any better to me.
Having audio confernces with 80+ people is going to be a
chaos, without being able to relate voice to a face/ID. In an
email or chat format at least you can tell who is saying
what, helping in organization of the ideas as a team. There
will be a log to go back to, which is more effective and less
expensive than recording audio conferences and distributing them.
Just my thoughts on the issue.
Atul
-----Original Message-----
From: ext Hallam-Baker, Phillip [mailto:pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com]
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 12:59 PM
To: 'George Gross'; Hallam-Baker, Phillip
Cc: Sharma Atul (Nokia-ES/Boston); william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net;
ietf-mailsig(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: Ways to proceed
Hi Phillip,
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
For the WS-Security WG we started off with 80 people on
the calls.
not relevant. By their nature, teleconferance calls have
the following
non-starter characteristics:
1) they are inherently exclusionary, as there is a finite
number of
teleconference participants who must show up at the
scheduled time, in
contrast to the e-mail process that is 7x24 and scales to
any size of
group.
And the IETF meetings would be what then?
Getting the job done is inherently exclusionary. Only four or five
people maximum can be effective editors on a spec, the rest
can only
really comment if the job is going to be finished.
2) teleconferences generally prevent and/or inhibit
anonymonity, you
must identify yourself to participate in the call. For some
conference services, who ever runs the call can retrieve call
originations from the teleconference billing data.
There is not and has never been a requirement for IETF
process to be
anonymous. Suggesting that this should be a requirement is
just silly.
3) it is problematic whether there will be a publically
visible and
*accurate* record of the proceedings stored at an archive web
address. it entirely depends on the minutes taker's capacity to
hear, capture to text, and identify who said what. then post the
results for
review/comment.
That is why in every business meeting the first order of
business is
always to review the minutes of the last meeting.
The Victorians managed to make the process work.
4) it places at a disadvantage those participants who
have English
as a Second Language, or reside in disparate time zones from the
majority.
The proceedings of the IETF have always been in English,
and all the
specs are in English. If you are not fluent in English you
are going
to be unable to make more than a limited contribution.
5) it incurs a recurrent economic and time scheduling expense to
organize/participate.
Rubbish.
In some cases, working groups may delegate subsets of
their work to
design teams that work offline from the main group and
then report
their findings in an Internet Draft. However, it is not
clear to me
that process does not have some of the same exclusionary
characteristics found in the teleconference proceedings. at what
point does the design team have too many cooks? who decided team
membership eligibility?
You point out the inherent weakness of the IETF scheme. The
ineffectiveness of the mailing list discussions means that the real
decisions get pushed out to a cabal and the rest of the group feel
alienated and in the case of MARID went on to wreck the proposal.
The IETF is run in exactly the way that most engineers
would like to
work, free from deadlines, accountability and with infinite
scope to
achieve technical perfection. The results are pretty predictable.