On Tue, Oct 25, 2005 08:48:23AM -0400, John C Klensin allegedly wrote:
Brian, since PESCI is your show, could you reflect and comment
on at least some of this before we hold a BOF and plenary
presentation... a BOF that, were this an effort that was not
driven by the IETF Chair, might well not be considered
coherent enough to get meeting time, much less plenary time?
I think the problem here is that we only have a few categories of
activities. What do you call a non-plenary activity that is not a WG?
All we have is a BOF, but BOF has a lot of connotations.
(2) We try to avoid situations in the IETF in which the same
person occupies so many roles as to be, even potentially, the
sole determiner of what occurs. We tend to use pejorative
terms like "acting as judge and jury" or "conflict of interest"
to describe such situations, although neither term is precisely
correct. But, in the instance of PESCI, we have a single
person who:
* Has a known and strong position on how the standards track
should evolve
etc. I think this is silly. This isn't about power, it's about
initiative. We avoid concentrating too much power in one place but if
you want something to move forward you had better be glad that someone
pushes it, and please note there is a difference between taking the
steps necessary to *offer* ideas and *imposing* them. In my opinion
this list is a red herring. Otherwise please show me a specific abuse
of power.
(3) The "team" is expected to report at the Plenary, partially
on the basis of its BOF meeting, but the BOF ends only one
50-minute break before the plenary. Not exactly time for the
team to meet, carefully consider the discussion at the BOF, and
prepare a report. Indeed, while it is reasonable to hope for
something else, this would appear to be a setup for the "well,
we just got a lot of input and are thinking about it, stay
tuned" reports that characterized the admin restructuring
process.
Declaring guilt before the crime is yet another rhetorical trick.
(4) We still don't have any real idea how the results of PESCI
will be interpreted and processed.
Exactly. So calm down and let's not cry doom just yet.
On Tue, Oct 25, 2005 12:14:22PM -0400, John C Klensin allegedly wrote:
More important, there have been hints of the work of this effort
being approved by extraordinary means, it is reasonably rare
that a design team gets a BOF and then a significant block of
plenary time to present and discuss the results of that BOF at
the same IETF meeting, etc. Precisely because of the
complications of the leadership roles, other activities of this
effort need to be far more open, public, careful, and generally
sensitive to an open process and IETF community involvement than
usual. I remained silent because I hoped that level of
sensitivity would prevail and that this would be efficient. I
am not feeling very good about that right now.
Suppose the IETF Chair wanted to come up with an idea to present. He
writes up a draft and then circulates it among a small group for
discussion and polishing. He submits it and, being the IETF Chair,
gets a time slot for presentation and discussion. The only thing
Brian did that you wouldn't do is that he announced beforehand that he
was getting a group together. Every IETF Chair has polished process
ideas in this way. Way back, when we first tossed around the concept
of working groups and areas and the IESG, Phill Gross called a few of
his friends to help him work out how to organize things before
presenting his ideas. I didn't think PESCI needed to be as organized
as it was, but Brian did so *because* he was trying to be sensitive.
So I think you have completely the wrong attitude toward this.
Everyone has done something like this; Brian is doing it in a more
public, process-oriented way than his predecessors.
On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 09:50:28AM -0400, John C Klensin allegedly wrote:
--On Wednesday, 26 October, 2005 15:06 +0200 Brian E Carpenter
<brc(_at_)zurich(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com> wrote:
And I really don't see the value of cross-posting when the
pesci-discuss list exists for exactly this discussion.
Much of the discussion has moved to that list. However...
To the extent to which there is a serious concern that the
operation of PESCI and the pesci-discuss list are an abuse of
process, the IETF list is exactly the right place to have that
particular discussion.
All right, but only for that one question (which is a red herring,
since there is no "operation" of pesci).
Scott
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf