ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Proposal for a revised procedure-making process for the IETF

2001-10-13 13:10:02

On Sat, 13 Oct 2001, Keith Moore wrote:
    
    > Neither POISSON nor any working group gets to do what it wants to do 
    > when it wants to do it.  All topics have always needed IESG approval.
    
    while this is true, neither Poisson or its predecessors has ever been 
    quite like any other working group.  in my experience IESG has felt
    considerable pressure to follow the direction of Poisson, and some
    reluctance to object to Poisson discussing a particular topic.

The issue is not whether POISSON discusses any particular topic but what
is the result (actions after consensus) of that discussion, regardless
of where it took place.

Assuming that's what you meant, you seem to be suggesting that because a
discussion took place nominally within the venue of a working group,
that gives it some greater standing than if the same discussion took
place on the general IETF mailing list.  I disagree.  I think it is the
discussion itself that matters not its source.

In my experience with POISSON the transition of a topic from discussion
to a working group task occurs as a result of one of two things.  Either
someone (usually one of the co-Chairs) steps up to the AD and asks for
approval for the task or the IESG/AD hands over a task for the working
group.  Frankly I don't see that changing whether or not there is a long
standing working group or a long standing mailing list.

    furthermore there's an inhernet problem with IESG demanding that it have
    tight reign on a WG that specifies the process that IESG must
    follow.

This issue is only interesting to the extent that you believe the IESG
does not already control POISSON.  From my perspective the IESG has
always controlled POISSON, although I concede I never really thought
about the possibility that the IESG imagined this huge 20 foot
clue-by-four behind my back whenever I asked about taking on a task.

I'm not convinced there's an issue here but your mileage may vary.

    It appears that we need better mechanisms for quickly dealing with
    each of two conditions:
    
    1. process problems which are not addressed in our current documents

    2. alleged violations of process on the part of those who are
       running things.
    
    both of these mechanisms need to have clear and publically visible ways
    of raising the issue, and inviting public comment where appropriate.

Personally I'm in favor of the IESG doing its best to do what is
needed at the moment its needed.  If it needs further review after that
then we do that, through a working group or whatever.  Isn't this part
of the reason why we have the IESG?

I have no particular opinion on our appeals process, having no direct
experience with it.  I'm not inclined to participate in changing
something I don't think is broken, but I'm certainly open to being
convinced that something is broken.

I'm still of the opinion that the general ietf mailing list is a clear
and publically visible way to raise and discuss, inviting public comment
as needed, any such issues.  I do not (yet?) understand why the poised
list is special in this regard.

Jim

--
James M. Galvin <galvin(_at_)acm(_dot_)org>
co-Chair of POISSON but speaking for myself



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>