Dear IESG,
The document should be amended and discussed or just rejected for
reasons, but not dead. Many managers/authors in IETF may say I am very
busy so I forgot to reply or track the discussions, so does that work
for IETF volunteering work ? (it can be a very bad organisation
practice). IMHO IETF needs more clear procedures for managers and
secretaries (as the draft suggests for clear-roles of secretaries), I
don't think RFC2418 is clear and practical enough. In other words the
RFC2418 does not have a good section about the secretary role, the
section written is small and is not effective.
I never heard of a good management practice without secretaries
(specially when they are totally volunteering). If there is good
management practice in IETF then their MUST be a good secretary
practice in IETF WGs (specially with large group participants or/and
with many adopted work). For the future we need to expect that the
IETF may have higher volumes/demands.
Therefore, I object this action from IESG, they need to reconsider
updates of RFC2418. I think that the IESG has already a secretary :-)
Comments below,
AB
On 12/9/14, Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 7:27 AM, Ralph Droms
<rdroms(_dot_)ietf(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
Adrian - I have to say I had an entirely different experience than you
apparently did with the IETF discussion of this document. Without
exhaustively reviewing the various threads, my recollection is that the
*content* of the document was mostly considered useful, while there was
significant disagreement with the *process* of publishing that content as
a
BCP or (later) Informational RFC. I specifically don't recall any
attempt
to ascribe anything but good intentions to the authors and I do recall
many
descriptions of the content of the document like "very useful material"
(my
own words).
I am (or was) also supportive of its publication as an Informational RFC.
Though I have never had or functioned as a WG secretary, I know some
co-chairs find it useful if not necessary to smooth operation of their
working groups. That being the case, RFC2418 clearly says too little about
this as-is.
I support updates to 2418,
I thus expressed support for the work and, relative to the comments of
others, I thought my points were quite resolvable.
-MSK
On 12/9/14, Adrian Farrel <adrian(_at_)olddog(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk> wrote:
Hi,
I have been discussing what to do with this document with the IESG and with
the
authors.
Ok, so now the community must discuss with the IESG. I hope the IESG
considers the feedback from community.
It would appear that there is not sufficient support for publishing the work
as
an RFC, so I will mark the I-D as "Dead" and remove it from the process.
I don't see any reason of such appear, please explain?
Of course, you are all welcome to continue to discuss its content, and the
work
could be brought back if there is a desire to do so.
We also are allowed to comment on IESG respond.
I am not going to let this moment pass without spending a few words to say
how
disappointed I am with the tone and lack of constructiveness in the debate
about
this document. It seems to me that a lot of what is bad about the IETF
emerged
during the discussions and that there was very little attempt to ascribe
good
intentions to the authors. I think that should be a cause for shame among
those
who sent comments.
I agree with you. The authors of the document done a great effort, and
I see the importance of this document. Some external organisation may
be against the IETF to improve so they are using their people to enter
the IETF and make noise. The IETF MUST stop that noise (i.e. noise
means information which is not relavent of which is without reasons or
with disruptive to other info).
I know that it is hard to find time in your busy lives to read and review
drafts. Nevertheless, continuing the thread of review based on one version
of a
document without looking at the new revision is not helpful.
I agree,
I know that you all care a lot about the IETF process and the things that
make
the IETF unique. Nevertheless, the healthy paranoia expressed in many of
the
comments seemed to me to go over the line. There is often a claim that the
IESG
is unwilling to make changes to IETF process, is slow, and ossified. Well,
in
this case it would appear that the IETF community is unwilling to even
acknowledge the current state of its own processes or to allow them to be
documented with consensus for future reference.
This can be solved by discussing in face to face meetings. While the
remote review/comments don't solve the problem then we solve it in
meetings.
Adrian
Thanks Adrian, I agree with most of your comment. IMHO we need to
determine the participants who objected to the document (update 2418)
and know their real-reason, then we can focus the discussion.
Best Regards
AB