Subject: Possible General Area MiniBOF 2: WG Procedures

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 13:42:21 +0200

People willing to work actively (i.e draft or
and edit) a document on this topic are
invited to contact me immediately. The objective
is to plan a mini-BOF during the General Area open
meeting at IETF 66. Without committed volunteers
in the community, this work will not happen.

The IETF's WG procedures (BCP 25, RFC 2418) were published
in 1998 and are probably in need of updating in the light of
eight years' practical experience. The first stage might
be to write a summary of practical problems encountered
in interpreting and implementing RFC 2418, and a summary
of informal practices that have proved successful.
(Note that mailing list management procedures are out of
scope for this item.)

   Brian Carpenter
   General Area Director

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

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 09:21:55 -0700

> (Note that mailing list management procedures are out of

Brian,

Your focus is on changing some documents.  As laudable as this latest 
round of pursuit would seem -- especially your focus on doing bite-sized 
projects -- it is not at all clear what practical benefit there can be 
in such efforts.

The unfortunate reality of IETF processes, concerning working groups, is 
that we tend to pay rather little attention our documented rules, 
nevermind the documented philosophy of the organization.  (John Klensin 
has been diligent in repeatedly pointing out aspects of this.)   
Charters do not conform to requirements.  Milestones are not met. Area 
directors take the position that they embody community expertise, 
including about market need. IETF meetings are less inclusive, by virtue 
of ignoring cost issues for those on a limited budget. And so on.

Yes, many rules are followed and, in particular, many working groups are 
quite diligent.  However there is a pattern of whim to the conduct of 
IETF process, as well as a pattern of both giving the IESG primary 
authority and the IESG's taking that authority.

Once upon a time, the IESG's job was to serve the working groups.  Over 
the years, the relationship has reversed.

Unless and until we move the IESG back to being a real facilitator of 
community initiatives rather than of being a dictator of ostensible 
community need, and unless and until we start worrying quite a bit more 
about much more timely working group output that has real Internet 
operational "pull" -- ie, relevance --  it is not clear what practical 
benefit there will be in expending the considerable effort needed to 
revise our process documents.

d/

-- 

Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
<http://bbiw.net>

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 12:40:51 -0400

> of ignoring cost issues for those on a limited budget. And so on.

Indeed.  For instance, some WG participants insist that the need for
backward compatibility with a non-standard protocol that has a trivial
installed base and has not been shown to work well, somehow trumps
well-established IETF requirements for protocol quality.

And somehow, all of these WG problems are IESG's fault.   If WGs run
amok, it's IESG's fault for not keeping them in line.  And yet if IESG
tries to ensure success of a WG by limiting its charter to avoid a
harmful result that a WG contingency is clamoring for, or if IESG tries
to rein in a WG that is getting out of hand,  IESG will be seen as
exceeding its authority or abusing its power.

Keith