Subject: RE: text suggested by ADs

From: "Lars-Erik Jonsson \(LU/EAB\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 14:29:29 +0200

Bill,

I think this can often be the reason why WG's get frustrated
an unhappy with IESG feedback. I agree with you that #1 can be
desirable, but how often are there so many discuss comments
that handling them individually would be a mess? The problem we
get from channelling all discuss comments through the responsible
AD is that the discussing AD(s) is(are) hidden behind an extra
abstraction layer, adding extra delay (as the responsible AD has
to get time to summarize and hopefully capture comments well),
and also increasing the risk for misinterpretations of what the
comment(s) was(were) really about. 

So, although I see the point with #1, I believe the problem you
have identified with the current scheme is real, and we should
try to do something about it. More direct communication with
individual ADs (especially ADs from other areas who do have
comments on what a WG has produced) would hopefully also reduce
the number of myths about IESG/AD operations.

To a certain degree, ADs should feel responsible for making sure
their own discuss comments are addressed and cleared. It should
be in the interest of all involved parts to make it happen as
quickly and smoothly as possible (to avoid having to re-read
document over and over again but instead get closure on them).

Rgds,
/L-E

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
> Bill Fenner
> Sent: den 8 maj 2005 19:51
> To: Dave Crocker
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: text suggested by ADs
> 
> 
> On 5/7/05, Dave Crocker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> >    If someone has the authority to block the long-term work 
> of a group of IETF
> > participants, they have an *obligation* to take their 
> concerns directly to
> > those participants and engage in a direct process to resolve it.
> 
> Dave,
> 
>   From my point of view, there are two assumptions that the IESG makes
> in this situation:
> 
> 1) Since the responsible AD (or PROTO shepherd) is more familiar with
> the working group / document / other work / etc, they will be able to
> more effectively communicate the concerns.
> 2) The AD that registered the DISCUSS is always willing to actually
> have a discussion directly with the WG or authors if necessary.
> 
> However, I think that the community tends to see instead:
> 
> 1) The discussing AD is hiding behind a shield
> 2) The discussing AD isn't willing to communicate with the WG
> 
> I've certainly seen responses to discusses that I've filed come back
> as "Well, I don't think this is reasonable, but I've made this change
> to satisfy the IESG," even though I would have been willing to have
> the discussion and yield to the WG's/authors' opinion.
> 
> I do think that #1 is solving a real problem - I'm pretty sure that
> WGs/authors would rather get one message summarizing all of the IESG's
> issues rather than 10 messages from different individuals that might
> have overlapping issues, etc.  However, if it's perpetuating the myth
> that ADs aren't willing to talk to the WGs/authors, we need to do
> *something* about it.
> 
>   Bill

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Bill Fenner <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 14:41:11 -0700

On 5/9/05, Lars-Erik Jonsson (LU/EAB) <[email-masked]> wrote:
> More direct communication with

Indeed.  Of course, the idea of having someone in the middle is really
that they will *facilitate* the discussion, so maybe we can find a way
to keep both aspects - direct communication and facilitation.

On 5/9/05, John Loughney <[email-masked]> wrote:
> When is a DISCUSS not a discuss? When it is a "You have to fix this and I'm holding a DISCUSS until it's fixed." I've seen variations on there as a draft editor and it's not always clear.

Well, for things like "This misuses MIME in a way that will cause
problems in the future" or "This type of security has known flaws and
it would be better to go this other way", yes, it tends to be "fix
this, period."  These are the "backstop" issues that Brian mentioned
(that the IESG would rather get out of the business of catching).

>It helps to have an explanation of the DISCUSS.

Certainly.  In theory, a DISCUSS without an explanation is not valid,
and I think the IESG has worked hard in the last couple of years to
provide actual reasons for DISCUSSes.  As you may know from a few IETF
plenaries, I've been collecting various bits of data; of the 475
DISCUSS evaluations in my database (which, it turns out, includes some
that have been resolved; I have to update my data collection
methodology), only one has no text associated with it, and that one is
one of the ones associated with the buggy methodology, i.e., has been
resolved.

(Of course, my database has no idea if the text that's there is
relevant or useful, but at least we're above the lowest hurdle)

  Bill