Gonzalo,
On 12/6/2013 2:57 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
Where people seem to disagree, often strongly, is on how proposals that
will be put forward for such evaluation by the WG and the IETF community
can be generated.
That's odd. I hadn't even noticed that that was part of the proposal
for voting circulated to the community, nor that it was a focus of
responses.
From Magnus' original posting of the proposal:
"A large number of documents, over an extended period of time,
with nothing published, suggests some deep and serious problems for an
effort in the IETF."
That's not about generating proposals but about choosing among them.
On a related note, there have been some comments about the RTCWeb chairs
effectively attacking the IETF principles. I think those comments are
unfair. We are talking about three former ADs in different areas all of
whom have made significant contributions to the IETF community along
many years.
As financial reports often note: "Past performance is not a guarantee of
future returns..."
More significantly, Gonzalo, you've just invoked an ad hominem argument
as a defense (or justification.) It's no more legitimate as a defense
than as an attack. Stated simply: the nature of the people who made
the proposal is irrelevant. What matters is the nature of the proposal.
And my own reading of the criticisms of the proposal that was circulated
was that they did primarily focus on the nature of the proposal, rather
than on the nature of the proposal's authors.
But as long as you've made this personal, what happened to the general
preference in the IETF -- especially for efforts that are complex or
otherwise difficult -- to have working group chairs /not/ be document
authors, so that the chairs can focus on /neutral/ efforts at managing
the process?
While there are never guarantees about the progress of an IETF working
group, such a separation might have had strategic benefit for this
effort. I note a number of points of broader concern about this working
group:
1. Chartered 1.5 years ago.
2. 11 working group drafts, with 13 related drafts.
3. Nothing yet published. No overviews, architectures,
use cases or anything else foundational, nevermind actual
specifications.
4. WG can't even resolve choice of a component technology
Frankly it does not help that the effort already seems to have excellent
market and IETF mindshare as the 'future' of Internet 'rich
communications'. Even the recent IAOC request for a volunteer is
calling for "exposure" to the technology -- although the technology
isn't stable.
A large number of documents, over an extended period of time, with
nothing published, suggests some deep and serious problems for an effort
in the IETF..
What am I mis-understanding?
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net