On Fri, 12 Oct 2001, Dave Crocker wrote:
At 10:19 AM 10/12/2001, James M Galvin wrote:
>...I am expecting the IESG to streamline
>the process of "new" working groups for process issues. Obviously this
>requires a bit of "change" in how the IESG works but surely they realize
>this is necessary for the proposed process to work and it will get done.
...the question is why
you have that expectation? we are talking about a management body that is
vastly overworked, and that has a very, very stable long-term pattern of
handling working group creation.
And unless the processes inside the IESG have changed, it is even more
consensus oriented than the rest of the IETF.
That takes time. A lot of it. And it is very difficult to streamline such
a process.
On a practical level, you and I are in agreement.
It occurred to me after reading Robert's note (which I'll respond to
separately), is that on the one hand this proposal doesn't change the
process that much. Consider that if an issue comes up it is discussed
on a mailing list. It matters to me which mailing list (poised or
ietf), but let's set that aside for a moment.
If there is consensus there's an issue the topic still needs approval
from the IESG. This proposal makes that step obvious, since it proposes
we "create" a new working group. What you may not realize is that that
step has always been true, it's just that the working group chairs
interacted directly with the AD and IESG to establish the goal and agree
to take on the work item. Then an appropriate announcement was made on
the poised mailing list.
The term streamlining was an attempt by me to characterize the current
process and observe that all the "overhead" is already present. What
this proposal does is to ensure our administrative process (Secretariat
tracking goals, etc.) is included.
It is my opinion this proposal does not change how things are actually
working, it just makes it clear to everyone what is working and how.
On the other hand I'll concede that when you formalize a process that
has been mostly working without the formalization, there's always the
risk that the process will falter, or otherwise not function as
optimally as it did. We'll just have to wait and see.
Hence the question reduces to: what existing list should be used? The
IETF main list, or a different list?
Given that we are considering a rather specific category of
(ongoing) topics, then forcing them on to the IETF list is likely to
have unfortunate side-effects on the IETF list.
Your question above works in both directions, but then I'm sure you know
that. The general ietf mailing list is always the default place to ask
anything. If there's a more appropriate forum a person is redirected.
The question I ask is why have two lists that I can take anything to?
Now I'm sure you're going to try and tell me that only process questions
go to poised and everything else goes to the ietf list. But I'll ask
again why? If the discussions are specific and they come and go, why do
we need a separate forum?
If something is that important that it is going to survive and become a
working group then it will get its own mailing list and move on.
Otherwise why not let the community as a whole reject the idea on the
ietf list?
And for those "unfortunate side-effects", we already have the
ietf+censored mailing list.
Jim
--
--
James M. Galvin <galvin(_at_)acm(_dot_)org>
co-Chair of POISSON but speaking for myself