Re: call for ideas: tail-heavy IETF process

On 05/16/2013 01:44 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
> --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.
I don't think I agree.   I do agree that a single AD shouldn't be able 
to indefinitely delay a WG's output, and that you want IESG to be able 
resolve such issues internally in the vast majority of cases (because 
appeals to IAB are very time- and resource-consuming). But I don't think 
two weeks is long enough in general to get other ADs to thoroughly 
review a document.  Two months would be much better.
Now it might be the case that IESG members will help each other out, and 
collaborate to log multiple DISCUSS votes to give everybody more time to 
review a document.   People of good will acting in good faith can 
usually find ways to work around buggy processes to make the right thing 
happen, at least in the most important cases.   But it's not ideal, and 
it relies on ADs "getting along" with each other - which creates 
incentives for ADs to not do an adequate job of reviewing some 
documents, so that they'll be able to call in favors from other ADs when 
they need them.   So overall I think the balloting process that IESG 
currently follows is seriously flawed.
> 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.
In theory, yes.   But that hardly seems like a good tool for resolving 
issues in a single document, especially when the WG has other ongoing 
work that might turn out to be useful.    Also, at least when I was on 
IESG all of us seemed to be aware that though we did have the authority 
and responsibility to push back on poor work, we also had to be mindful 
of the potential for the community to mutiny.

> 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'd hope so.  But I also think that the process should work even for an 
objection raised by an AD who was unpopular with the rest of IESG.  Of 
course I hope that ADs get along well with one another and work together 
to make a better Internet.  But I also know from experience that some 
ADs tend to have more clout than others, and that the ones with the most 
clout aren't always the ones with the best technical judgment.
Keith