--On Thursday, May 16, 2013 00:55 -0400 Keith Moore
<moore(_at_)network-heretics(_dot_)com> wrote:
Which is to say, if there is only a single AD "blocking" a
document, that block is essentially a 2 week affair if you
are willing to push the point. No need for negotiating; if
the WG decides that the AD is totally off base, tell your
sponsoring AD that you're waiting the two weeks. People
(unfortunately IMO) don't push the point nearly enough.
I think it's very unfortunate that IESG has adopted rules that
work this way. Part of IESG's job is to provide independent
review of WG output. It that review can be circumvented
merely by waiting two weeks, that's a bug in the process.
And if an AD raises a DISCUSS about a matter of technical or
document quality (or for that matter, about a process
violation), and the WG isn't even willing to discuss the
point, but instead relies on the two week timeout, I think
that's grounds for appeal to the IAB.
Keith,
I generally agree with Pete although I share your low opinion of
a lot of current IETF work, but your comment above seems to call
for comment from someone, like myself, who has often been
critical of the IESG. I don't think the current rules are
ideal, but the effect of the ones that you and Pete cite isn't
really that a WG can circumvent a review by waiting two weeks.
First, the dissenting AD has those same two weeks to convince
others on the IESG that his or her position is reasonable or at
least needs more extensive consideration. If that is possible,
then there is no longer a single AD objecting and the two week
rule does not apply. If it is not possible, then there is
either something wrong with the objection or the AD making it
and probably it is reasonable for the process to move forward.
Conversely, a WG that decides to avoid actually engaging on an
issue in the hope of letting the two-week clock run out is
putting itself at considerable risk. The IESG still have the
ability to fire WG leadership and even to close WGs. Under any
reasonable circumstances, I assume that the IESG would respond
very strongly if an AD pointed out the a WG had ignored an
effort to discuss a substantive issue even if the rest of the
IESG disagreed with that particular AD about that issue. I
can't remember any instances of a WG Chair being fired, or a WG
being shut down entirely, while documents were post IETF Last
Call and under IESG discussion, but I presume that is because
the IESG has never been provoked quite enough rather than
because there is any rule that would prevent it. Firing a Chair
or closing a WG on the grounds that they refused to engage on a
substantive issue would, I assume, be sustained on any appeal.
Similarly...
I agree that we should reject kings. But we should also
reject stubborn working groups and stubborn authors. We
shouldn't presume that a WG knows better than the IESG. The
two have different points-of-view, but neither is inherently
superior to the other.
I don't think we should presume that a WG knows better than the
IESG either. I do think it is reasonable to assume that a WG
knows better than a single AD who cannot convince others on the
IESG of the merit of his or her position or even that the issue
is important enough that they should read the document carefully
and form their own informed opinions.
best,
john