Subject: [newtrk] newtrk meeting in Seoul

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2004 20:36:43 -0500 (EST)

I forwarded the draft newtrk charter to Harald (in his role as AD for the
General Area) who is taking it to the IESG.

In reviewing the comments on the list I only saw one specific suggestion
for a change in the WG description (from Elwyn) but I agreed with the one
comment on the list that said the change would not be an improvement.

In response to some suggestions I did push back the 1st milestone a month.

The charter is  now in the hands of the IESG which may request changes.

Those of you who think that the IETF reorganization should not be done in
a number of separate working groups should make your views known to the
IESG after they publish the version of the charter that they feel OK with.
I did not deal with that issue in this charter.

I just put in a request for a newtrk session in Seoul (Harald has OKed it)

Those of you who would like to publish specific proposals (or update
existing proposals) please do so before the cutoff (in a week for new IDs
and two weeks for revisions) and we can discuss them in Seoul.

Harald has asked me to function as chair (at least for now) so it would
not be right for me to push my own proposal but if someone wants to take
over the document please let me know and I'll send you the raw nroff.

Scott

.
newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 11:13:07 -0500

> for a change in the WG description (from Elwyn)

so you ignore the several messages that said that the approach was too
fragmented because they weren't "specific" enough?

this is a sham.

Keith
.

---

From: Alex Rousskov <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 10:01:31 -0700 (MST)

Actually, there were more than one specific change suggestion
(unrelated to the fragmented approach issue). I relied on at least one
such suggestion[1] being addressed/discussed before the charter is
forwarded. I guess I was wrong. I also feel that the "are non-standard
track documents in scope?" thread indicates that the charter needs to
be clarified (one way or another).

While I would not call this a "sham", it is a yet another indication
that IETF lacks an issue tracking mechanisms unless the document
author/editor is willing to invest the time to roll out their own. I
am not sure whether such lack is desirable given other IETF
values/processes. For example, it would make silently ignoring
opinions (that go against majority will) more difficult and time
consuming. Would making ignorance expensive be a good thing?  I am no
longer sure.

Alex.

[1] "(e)" in http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/msg00066.html

On Mon, 2 Feb 2004, Keith Moore wrote:

> > I forwarded the draft newtrk charter to Harald (in his role as AD
> > for the General Area) who is taking it to the IESG.
> >
> > In reviewing the comments on the list I only saw one specific
> > suggestion for a change in the WG description (from Elwyn)
>
> so you ignore the several messages that said that the approach was
> too fragmented because they weren't "specific" enough?
>
> this is a sham.
>
> Keith
.

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 12:35:36 -0500 (EST)

if you want to call not trying to read peoples minds a sham so be it
if you, or others, do not like the charter and can tell the IESG
what changes you woudl like to see p-lease send your suggestions to them 
(but I doubt they are in the mind reading business either)

Scott

----

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 11:13:07 -0500

this is a sham.

Keith

.

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 12:42:13 -0500 (EST)

> [1] "(e)" in http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/msg00066.html

sorry - I did not notice that suggestion at the end of the message
(I did see the comemnt on Elwyn's suggestion)

i.e. the issue is the lack of an issues tracking system (just as you
suggest)

I'm fine with adding 
e) discussion and possible recommendation of a revised scheme for
   naming/identifying/archiving IETF documents.

except that the topic is rerun every 2-3 years with no resolution
and would seem to be likely to do the same thing here - if people
feel strongly they shoudl let teh IESG know

Scott
.

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 10:59:58 -0800

> fragmented because they weren't "specific" enough?

Keith, you are either being dense or deliberately insulting.

I've heard your repeated message about this form of work being too 
fragmented to get things right.

I think you are wrong - that trying to consider everything at once in a 
format like a WG is not going to work, and therefore identifying pieces of 
the puzzle that can be worked on relatively separately is the only viable 
way forward. And I think I have the support of a reasonable number of 
reasonable people in saying so.

The IESG has to make the decision on which groups to charter based on their 
understanding of the overall picture.
The task Scott has in hand is to make the best charter he can make for the 
component that he's considering. Whether or not to charter it is the IESG's 
decision.

My current thinking - which is the basis on which I've asked Scott to take 
leadership of this WG - is that this is a separable piece of the puzzle 
that "has to be done no matter what else we do".

The Solutions mailing list is a place to have the argument on many WGs 
versus (so far undefined) other ways of structuring the introduction of 
process changes - if you have another format for the work to propose, 
propose it there.

But we (the IESG) have picked an approach. And while you may disagree with 
the approach, you can't fault Scott for trying to work within that 
framework.

The use of the word "sham" is inappropriate.

                     Harald

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 14:23:49 -0500

> format like a WG is not going to work

Nobody has suggested "trying to consider everything at once".  There is
such a thing as being too broad.  There is also such a thing as being
too narrow, of which this proposed group is an example.  

> the approach, you can't fault Scott for trying to work within that 

What bothers me is the use of a "last call" to demonstrate support for
the proposed charter while ignoring the objections to that proposed charter.

--
He not busy being born, is busy dying.		- Bob Dylan
.
newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 15:23:32 -0500

>reasonable people in saying so.

FWIW, I agree that this approach (divide and conquer) is much more likely to
produce useful results than a single widely-scoped WG that focuses on
solving all of the identified problems within a single group.

In particular, I think that the question of how/if to restructure our 
standards
track is sufficiently independent to allow us to make forward progress in
this area while we are still trying to decide what to do in other areas.

Margaret

.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 15:27:55 -0500

Why is that so many people assume that anything broader than the currently
proposed charter equates to "all of the identified problems" ???

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 15:31:16 -0500

Hi Keith,

>proposed charter equates to "all of the identified problems" ???

What type of work breakdown do you propose?

Margaret

.