Re: is the WG-Charter concept changed?

Dear Margaret,
I want to be clear first: I certainly consider one or two cases. But 
no ad hominem is intended. To the contrary I try to take advantage 
from experience to see how a slight procedure description improvement 
changing nothing (cf. Brian) could help avoiding a problem I see no 
reason for.
At 13:58 22/08/2005, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> Hi Jefsey,
>
> At 11:05 AM +0200 8/18/05, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding-05.txt
> I agree with Brian that this procedures does not change the 
> standards process and/or the official role of the WG chair.  In 
> fact, the ideas in this document were largely adapted from things 
> that WG chairs were already doing in some areas or in some 
> groups.  The idea is to ask the WG chairs to take more 
> responsibility for the quality of WG output, hopefully reducing the 
> number of documents that come to the IESG will serious quality issues.
Same point of view. I just want still to help decreasing the number 
of that documents, in helping decreasing the chances of appeal.
> However, I do think it would make sense to consider/discuss your 
> specific suggestions:
> > 1. The first addition is that the proposed write-ups are presented 
> > for quick comments to the WG.
> The "ballot write-up" portion of the questionnaire does become 
> public, and I suppose that it could be reviewed by the WG.  However, 
> I am not sure what benefit that would provide...
Just to help making sure everything (including disagreements) are 
reported the way everyone sees them and reduce the number of 
documents. Let assume you have a disagreement: it is better that 
every party agrees on the way their own positions will be presented 
than the IESG to receive a flood of mails. This way IESG at least 
knows that  each position has been reviewed by its supporter.
> Before the PROTO questionnaire was in use, ADs would provide the 
> ballot write-ups with no input from anyone.
This permitted comments on the WG Chair. I am confident quite the 
same information may be offered by the WG Chair himself, with the 
help/support of transparency.
> In general, they consist of the abstract of the document (perhaps 
> with a bit more text to say why the specification is needed), a 
> summary of the WG consensus process and a statement about who has 
> reviewed the document in the later stages of review/approval.  These 
> statements do not end-up in the RFC or in any archival location...
> What is your concern about these statements?  And, what do you hope 
> that a review will accomplish?
There are probably may cases. Both of trust and distrust. The 
write-up should be received as a comment by the WG through its 
WG-Chair on the accomplished work. This seems important at least in 
three cases I experienced:
1. the charter has actually not been considered because a leading 
group has a predefined vision of it.
2. the charter could not be fulfilled for good reasons
3. the charter is only partly adequate and had to be upgraded

> I think that we should be careful about adding any more steps to the 
> standards publication process, so I will personally tend to push 
> back on any steps that do not, IMO, add significant value.
Full agreement. I measured that from comments. This can be addressed 
in another way (see below).
> > 2. two questions more are added, one on the way the Charter has 
> > been respected, one on the care given not to favor one technical 
> > vision over others (one might refer to RFC 3869). I suppose 
> > competition in a WG is not between propositions but for the best 
> > user needs support?
> Today, we do not have an explicit check that a WG work item that has 
> been submitted for publication matches a WG charter milestone or is 
> otherwise within the WG charter.  There is an implicit check during 
> AD review, perhaps, but not an explicit one.
> I would like to see such an explicit check added, so I personally 
> agree that it would be a good addition to the PROTO questionnaire 
> for the WG chair to state what WG milestone is represented by a 
> particular document and/or otherwise explain how the document is 
> in-charter for the WG.  I think that we should consider this 
> addition if/when the PROTO process is updated.
There is an implicit implicit check. I would suggest there is an 
implicit explicit check with possible comments. This would only 
translate into  a wording like "if the Shepherding Chair does not 
commit the Charter has been technically inclusively fulfilled the 
part I.x must document it."
The WG Chair already de facto commits there is a rough consensus. 
This would add he also commits the charter has been considered and 
fulfilled on a technically inclusive basis. This follows what Brian 
has reminded. Otherwise he has a standard place to mention and 
possibly explain it.
> Others may disagree, of course.
>
> The second portion of your suggestion is, IMO, already represented 
> in the questionnaire, as we ask about the WG consensus process, 
> contentious issues, other options discussed by the WG and the 
> strength of WG consensus on the document.  It is the role of the WG 
> chair to determine WG consensus, and the questionnaire asks the WG 
> chair to report on the state of that consensus.
> I sense that there is some concern underlying your questions 
> regarding the choices being made by a particular WG...  The PROTO 
> process isn't intended to, and really won't, affect the authority or 
> the responsibility of WG chairs to guide the WG through difficult 
> decision-making processes and to make a determination regarding when 
> rough consensus has been reached on a particular choice or approach. 
> This is the core role of the WG chair.  The PROTO document does give 
> the WG chair an explicit opportunity to share any concerns that 
> he/she might have about a particular consensus call and/or selection 
> process with the AD, but it doesn't change the nature of that process.
I do not want anything else than to help the WG Chair. If the Chair 
knows that he will have to report on the way the WG has considered 
the Charter, this might help him considering better the Charter while 
conducting his WG. We are not here to dispute but to achieve the best 
work in common: the WG community results from the adherence to the 
Charter. If Members see the Charter is not considered enough 
(even  in a different way) they vote with their feet. To common detriment.
> If you are concerned that an unfair selection process is being 
> followed in a particular WG (or has been in the recent past), you 
> should talk to the WG chairs about it.  If you are not satisfied 
> with the WG chairs' response, you should raise the issue with the 
> responsible AD listed on the charter page.
In one particular current case I certainly consider, this has been 
done. The PROTO target is to reduce the IESG load and paperwork. I 
try to help reducing them in helping a better common understanding 
from the very beginning when a situation developed where a few 
immediate DISCUSS or even the wish to avoid them could prevent a 
difficult IETF LC and appeals. But my point also and mainly concern 
the cases where a WG uncovers new possibilities not covered by the 
Charter: we are here in an innovation area we all agree we want to do better.
I suggest that a flexible way for a WG - through standard procedure - 
to comment its own Charter and to explain some resulting positions 
and choices, can only be of help to everyone and to foster innovation.
All the best.
jfc








_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf