Subject: [Pesci-discuss] Growing concerns about PESCI

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 08:48:23 -0400

Hi.

I'm getting more and more troubled by the PESCI process, at
least the portions of it that I can observe by reading the
messages on the public list.   I've had some of these concerns
since the process was initiated.  I decided to remain silent,
at least in public, about them on the pragmatic theory that
nothing else was working so this was worth a try and I didn't
have a better proposal.

But, judging from the I-D and the list discussions, PESCI is
tending to wander off into some very familiar weeds.  Worse, as
I had feared, it seems to have preempted virtually all of
whatever energy was left in Newtrk (other than the
"cruft-killing" exercise) while circling around to many of the
same issues from a more restricted perspective.   I don't think
what is going on has yet crossed over into abusive behavior,
but it is probably time that the community examine this
carefully, perhaps at the BOF if not sooner.

Is PESCI characterizing the current process or inventing a new
one?  Is it about principles for the IETF or principles for
process change?  How much of the efforts of the Problem
Statement effort, Newtrk, Poisson, Poised, etc., etc., is it
replaying without any real mechanism for injecting new
insights?  Do we have a model for getting from whatever it
produces to real changes that are focused on IETF's critical
path that doesn't involve more elements of "the IETF Chair
decides"?  Is the "team" structured to be, and demonstrating
that it is more effective at, figuring out what that critical
path really is than a number of predecessor efforts have been?

If this were an ordinary design team effort, even one with
minutes and an open list, most of those questions would be
premature: we would wait for the results and then make
judgments on that basis.  But it isn't such a design team: it
is a more or less formal effort convened by the IETF Chair,
with members selected by the IETF Chair using criteria
determined by the IETF Chair, and so on (see Addendum).  If the
community thinks the process is working well despite those
complications, so be it.  I'm not convinced and I'm getting
concerned.

Brian, since PESCI is your show, could you reflect and comment
on at least some of this before we hold a BOF and plenary
presentation... a BOF that, were this an effort that was not
driven by the IETF Chair, might well not be considered
coherent enough to get meeting time, much less plenary time?

      john

-----------------------
Addendum: Examples of why this team needs to be considered as an
extraordinary procedure, created by extraordinary procedures
and without clear community consent, and cannot be considered
as an "ordinary design team"....

In no particular order...

(1) Design teams tend to self-constitute although they can be
selected.  When they are selected by a WG Chair or AD, the
membership criteria are usually clear and then followed.  In
this case, membership selection was filtered based, in part, on
the participants not being an activist and, specifically, not
having current drafts for reform.  Yet the organizer has a
reform draft, and is generating new versions of it, and is an
exception. (20050923)

(2) We try to avoid situations in the IETF in which the same
person occupies so many roles as to be, even potentially, the
sole determiner of what occurs.  We tend to use pejorative
terms like "acting as judge and jury" or "conflict of interest"
to describe such situations, although neither term is precisely
correct.  But, in the instance of PESCI, we have a single
person who:

	* Has a known and strong position on how the standards track
	should evolve

	* Organizes the group

	* Chairs and steers the group (the recent 2005.10.24
	13:23:22 note is a fairly strong example of "steering")

	* Takes a strong leadership and advocacy role in the
	discussions themselves.

	* Decides, as AD, that the group gets to use a
	semi-official IETF mailing list

	* In organizing this as a BOF (or whatever it is), ignores
	long-standing conventions that we don't just ignore an
	existing working group (NEWTRK) whose agenda and mission
	clearly overlaps the new effort.  Normally, when new
	efforts come along to organize a design team that falls
	within the scope of an open and putatively-active WG, the
	results of that team are referred to that WG, rather than
	being discussed and processed separately. 

	* Decides, as AD (albeit by finding two other ADs to serve
	as temporary proxy "Acting General Area ADs"), to allocate
	BOF time at IETF, while the relevant WG (also the
	responsibility of the same AD) does not meet.  Sam's
	comments (20051013, 20051019) are helpful in mitigating
	this, but stop well short of the "unless you get your act
	together, you aren't meeting at IETF" that is usual with
	similarly-wandering pre-BOF discussions.

	* Chairs the BOF

	* Indicates that, when IESG votes come up on the subject,
	he will recluse himself.  But we are developing a funny
	definition of "recluse" for a consensus-based, rather than
	voting-based, organization.  It now seems to mean that
	someone can abstain from voting, but can participate in
	discussions and try in every way possible to influence
	decisions before a vote is taken.  I think that definition
	is a problem; I note it is one that PESCI does not seem to
	be addressing.

(3) The "team" is expected to report at the Plenary, partially
on the basis of its BOF meeting, but the BOF ends only one
50-minute break before the plenary.  Not exactly time for the
team to meet, carefully consider the discussion at the BOF, and
prepare a report.  Indeed, while it is reasonable to hope for
something else, this would appear to be a setup for the "well,
we just got a lot of input and are thinking about it, stay
tuned" reports that characterized the admin restructuring
process.

(4) We still don't have any real idea how the results of PESCI
will be interpreted and processed.  Given the experience of
previous "process" efforts, clear community consensus is
unlikely to emerge from a 15 minute presentation and discussion
at a BOF, nor it is likely that one can be synthesized from
that discussion and discussed on the mailing list before it is
presented, possibly for action, at the plenary.  Will we see a
plenary presentation, followed by another IETF Chair
announcement?  I hope not, but fear that may be the direction
in which things are trending.

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

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 06:36:22 -0700

Some notes on a couple of your points.....

I've never seen a design team that had clear mebership criteria..... apart 
from the self-selecting variety, the versions I've seen have all been "you 
look like good people; would you care to spend time here".

> tuned" reports that characterized the admin restructuring

I very much agree. We specified "must be before the Plenary" in the request 
for a slot, and did not specify *how long* before the plenary - and got the 
(IMHO) worst possible time.
Then we didn't flag this as an emergency in the rescheduling phase. A 
mistake.

(note: at the time of the BOF request being sent in, Brian was acting as 
AD, and I was being proposed as BOF chair. With the reshuffling of the 
"oversight AD" role, Brian took over the chairmanship.)

To my mind, it is good that the PESCI BOF covers some of the ground covered 
before - ignoring it would have been extremely stupid.

Note on the relationship to NEWTRK:
The issues PESCI is looking at - for instance the Chair role and the IESG 
role - are definitely *outside* the remit of NEWTRK.
Asking a group that is flailing/failing wrt its current scope to take on 
work beyond that scope is generally not what I consider useful.

Speaking only as a PESCI member.

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 12:14:22 -0400

Harald,

I don't want to have this turn into a discussion among a handful
of current or recent IESG or IAB members, so will respond to
some of you note and then go quiet again.  The bottom line, IMO,
is that if others in the community are not concerned about this
and willing to speak up, then PESCI and how it is being
positioned are what the IETF wants and deserves... and so be it.

--On Tuesday, 25 October, 2005 06:36 -0700 Harald Tveit

>... 
>> this case, membership selection was filtered based, in part,
>> on the participants not being an activist and, specifically,
>> not having current drafts for reform.  Yet the organizer has a
> I've never seen a design team that had clear mebership
> criteria..... apart from the self-selecting variety, the
> versions I've seen have all been "you look like good people;
> would you care to spend time here".

Sure.  But this isn't an ordinary design team.  The IETF Chair
issued a call for volunteers and explicitly stated criteria for
selection that he then proceeded to violate (not just with
himself but with you, since you are co-author of a process
reform draft that has just been last-called and a significant
contributor to some of the ISD/SRD work).  Now perhaps the
"activist" / "author of drafts" criterion should be interpreted
much more narrowly as applying only to people who have proposed
changes to the process approval mechanism and have written
active drafts containing those proposals.  That would exclude a
somewhat smaller population, I think limited to me, but would
have been an irrelevant criterion for PESCI membership selection
since I did not volunteer.

	(Disclosure: I didn't volunteer not because I considered
	this hopeless or because I was convinced that Brian
	would not pick me (neither was the case), but because my
	travel and non-IETF commitment schedule over the last
	several months made it extremely unlikely that I could
	meet PESCI's workload requirements.)

More important, there have been hints of the work of this effort
being approved by extraordinary means, it is reasonably rare
that a design team gets a BOF and then a significant block of
plenary time to present and discuss the results of that BOF at
the same IETF meeting, etc.  Precisely because of the
complications of the leadership roles, other activities of this
effort need to be far more open, public, careful, and generally
sensitive to an open process and IETF community involvement than
usual.   I remained silent because I hoped that level of
sensitivity would prevail and that this would be efficient.  I
am not feeling very good about that right now.

>> team to meet, carefully consider the discussion at the BOF,
>> and prepare a report.  Indeed, while it is reasonable to hope
>> for something else, this would appear to be a setup for the
>> "well, we just got a lot of input and are thinking about it,
>> stay tuned" reports that characterized the admin restructuring
>> process.
> 
> I very much agree. We specified "must be before the Plenary"
> in the request for a slot, and did not specify *how long*
> before the plenary - and got the (IMHO) worst possible time.
> Then we didn't flag this as an emergency in the rescheduling
> phase. A mistake.

Obviously one that is not important enough to try fixing, given
that we've changed agenda scheduling a lot closer to actual WG
sessions than two weeks in advance and the IESG presumably has
considerable involvement and skin in this game.    I don't want
to start second-guessing the IESG, the IAD, and the Secretariat,
but it looks to me as if, even at this late date, IPR (which is
scheduled in the 1850-1950 slot on Tuesday) is in the same Area
and would have most of the same conflict constraints as PESCI.
If PESCI is really important to be given that sort of plenary
time and is a team effort rather than a one-person show with the
team providing some occasional calibration, why not make that
swap or some other one?

> (note: at the time of the BOF request being sent in, Brian was
> acting as AD, and I was being proposed as BOF chair. With the
> reshuffling of the "oversight AD" role, Brian took over the
> chairmanship.)

I want to apologize in advance to you and Brian for the metaphor
I'm about to use, but I can't think of a better one at the
moment and I think the point has to be made strongly.   As with
my earlier comments about the nature of meaningful reclusal, I
think the IETF is effective and its results meaningful only so
long as we can focus on content rather than form.  In a
situation where we were looking, as a community, for technical
or policy recommendations, I think we all need to be much more
interested in the identify and behavior of the puppetmaster
rather than in the puppet(s). Small changes of formal roles are
unimportant if the underlying relationships are unchanged.  

Brian remains General AD regardless on who on the IESG is
nominally responsible, Brian created PESCI on his own initiative
as General AD and IETF Chair and took rather extensive
responsibility for it, Brian is chairing the group itself and,
to judge from the public mailing, telling its participants
rather clearly what he wants discussed, and, regardless of who
is chairing the BOF, he is chairing the plenary and has
presumably exercised his authority as IETF Chair to give PESCI a
big slot of that agenda (half as long as the BOF session
assuming there is no discussion of its topics during the
slightly-open mike period.  Maybe that is ok, but, IMO, making
and keeping it ok calls for a standard of openness and community
involvement that is not being met.

> To my mind, it is good that the PESCI BOF covers some of the
> ground covered before - ignoring it would have been extremely
> stupid.

Sure.  But, based on the mailing list discussions and minutes,
the previous ground is being largely ignored.  If it weren't
being ignored, I'd expect to see the discussions include a lot
interactions of nature of "the dead whale WG discussed this
issue and concluded XYY but was unable to do anything with that,
we can build on it by...".   Instead, the appearance is that all
of those "old ground" issues are being discussed as if they were
new and there had been no previous community thinking about
them.   And that is what I am objecting to.   Maybe PESCI needed
to start with a clean page on the theory that all of the
previous efforts ended in futility or produced results that
didn't improve anything, but no one has said that.  Without it,
precisely want seems to be going on is ignoring that prior work.
I'll let you characterize the intelligence of that as you like.

> The issues PESCI is looking at - for instance the Chair role
> and the IESG role - are definitely *outside* the remit of
> NEWTRK.

But there has been some discussion of NEWTRK issues on the PESCI
mailing list that no one has declared out of order.  There have
also been items on the Newtrk agenda or as part of its
discussions that PESCI does seem to be preempting or ignoring.  

> Asking a group that is flailing/failing wrt its current scope
> to take on work beyond that scope is generally not what I
> consider useful.

Sure.  But, if the IESG --or even the General AD-- have
concluded that Newtrk is flailing or failing, the
procedurally-correct action is to either reduce its scope to
topics on which it is accomplishing something or to just close
it.  Neither of those things has been done.  Instead Newtrk has
just been cut off at the knees by preempting some of its agenda
and, to some extent, starving it for resource (I note that it is
not scheduled to meet in Vancouver.  That may be a fine
decision, but do you really believe Newtrk would not be meeting
if PESCI were not getting the attention of the relevant AD and
others).

Speaking only as myself.

      john

---

From: Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 12:53:53 -0400

Here's a specific aspect I'd like to hear the community at large
thinking about, re. PESCI (please read all the way to the
bottom to get the actual question; it may not be what you
expect):

We're not doing this as a WG because we (agreed we) don't like those 
nasty spiralling pointless and painful discussions of the current state
of the lint in the IETF navel, and the lack of detectable consensus.
We have a "-discuss" mailing list and a "design team" instead.
On the "-discuss" list, the lead of the design team has asked
folks to hash through issues, review the document, and contribute
brain trust.

Or: what a normal WG would be expected to do.

The big difference is -- there is absolutely no piece of IETF
standards process that *requires* that the "design team" listen to any
of the points provided on the "-discuss" list.  There is a tacit
requirement, in that one presumes the appropriate AD will be recalled if
the result is clearly and obviously out of step with what the community
asks, but that's a high-risk negative motivation.

So, a genuine question:  is PESCI blurring lines, or does
this suggest that we have in fact given up on WGs/our process?

Leslie.

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 18:09:01 +0100

Hi John,

> nothing else was working so this was worth a try and I didn't

I guess that this was part of my motivation for agreeing to be involved in
the PESCI team. Add to that the belief that something needs to be done.

> tending to wander off into some very familiar weeds.

Yeah. Those weeds are certainly attractive.
We have been actively struggling to stay out.

> Worse, as
> process change?

In as much as it is attempting to set out principles that should guide
process change, it also sets out principles of the IETF itself. Thus, a
principle of process change might have been expressed as "respect the
principles of the IETF" but that would not have been hugely helpful
without some additional granularity.

Three questions have to be asked:
- what are the principles of the IETF?
- what are the principles that must be applied during process change?
- what are the principles that should be enshrined in the revised process?

> How much of the efforts of the Problem

Can't say.
>From my perspective, this is an attempt to separate previous attempts at
isolating problems and solving problems, from an understanding of what
needs to guide the process (metaprocess) of isolating problems and solving
problems.

It seems to me that the weed-entangled rat-hole that has been entered in
the past has resulted from an attempt to fix too many problems at the same
time, while attempting to protect too many sacred cows. We lack stepwise
forward movement, and we lack clarity about which principles we must hold
dear, and which are "up for grabs".

Of course, my objectives may not be the same as others in the PESCI team.

> judgments on that basis.

AFAIK an "ordinary design team" does not normally have minutes or an open
list. usually, it sits in a huddle and produces an I-D. Sometimes it has a
charter and sometimes it doesn't.

The output of an "ordinary design team" is never more than grist to the
mill. I certainly don't expect the I-D we have produced to be in any way
special. On the other hand, it *is* an I-D that can form the basis for
discussion.

> But it isn't such a design team: it
> determined by the IETF Chair, and so on (see Addendum).

Agreed. But I don't see what else you expect the IETF chair to do. Should
he sit there and wring his hands, or should he attempt to kick-start some
discussions?

I would like to point out (as I always point out in my working groups)
that a design team is just a design team. Other people are particularly
welcome to form design teams and to discuss the issues at hand privately
and publicly.

Design teams should, on the whole, be fairly short lived. They are put
together to get some focus on an issue, and to produce work that can then
be discussed, rejected, modified, or accepted.

>From formation to I-D submission was just three weeks for the PESCI team.
Now you have an I-D that can be discussed on a dedicated mailing list, and
a BoF has been convened specifically to advance the discussions.

> If the

I'd like to understand your concerns better.

> Brian, since PESCI is your show,

You may think that. Brian may think that. But I am not so easily bought.

> could you reflect and comment

Ah. That is a valid point.

The issue was, I think, that having produced an I-D we asked ourselves
"what next?" "How can we best facilitate further discussion on this
topic?"

Mailing list is a good idea. But why not get some face-to-face time?

I agree with your characterisation of this DT as far as it goes. I
disagree with your characterisation of other DTs.

DT membership is usually limited to a small number of people who believe
that they can work together to a common goal with short-term milestones.
In my experience, when the team is constructed to include a set of people
with a common interest, but without this additional constraint, the result
is pretty disastrous, or else a compromise of such large proportions that
the resulting work is next to useless.

> is a problem; I note it is one that PESCI does not seem to

Long list.
Not sure where it is going.
Do you see the chair's job as a passive role or an active role?
Is he responsible for enabling discussion or stimulating discussion?
Should he offer his opinions and experience or stay mum?

Wrt NEWTRK, PESCI considered the overlap and believed that NEWTRK is
important and should be allowed to progress its work. We wrote:
       Newtrk issues are in scope for the process change but we should
       allow Newtrk to work - there maybe some opportunities to provide
       input to newtrk through the principles we propose here.

If you believe that the PESCI I-D should be discussed within NEWTRK I
can't see any harm in that provided it does not derail the useful work
that NEWTRK is doing.

> tuned" reports that characterized the admin restructuring

Yes. My concern too.
Not sure what to do with this.
In my opinion, it is valuable to have a forum to discuss the PESCI draft,
and a "BoF" will provide such a forum.
Not everyone will be able to attend the BoF, and the plenary has a "right"
to hear what is going on.

The timing is far from ideal and gives everyone a headache.

> in which things are trending.

Well, a good way to step in to this would be to discuss section 6 of the
I-D in some detail now, and on the PESCI-discuss list. Section 6 proposes
some next steps. Note that these next steps are not a proposal to develop
process change, but a proposal to develop a process whereby process change
can be made.

There seem to be three distinct proposals:
1. That a metaprocess is needed that will govern all process change
2. That such a metaprocess should be developed by a design team
   with open input from all concerned parties
3. That consideration should be given to which elements of IETF process
   are most immediately ripe for change.

Perhaps you can comment on these proposed next steps while also commenting
on the over-arching value of defining principles that would underlie the
development of a metaprocess and any individual process changes.

John, as should be apparent, I have not been closely involved in IETF
process change before although I have participated in (suffered from?)
some pilot schemes in the past. I see myself as a user of IETF process who
has at times been frustrated by the process and at times benefited from
it. My principal objective is to be able to further the work of my working
groups and to see an IETF which is more able to grow and react to rapid
changes in Internet technology.

Having found that IETF process change is generally slow to happen and
fogged by overly wide debate, I want to see some focus applied to
resolving broken process now. This does not mean that I think that the
wider discussions are not valid, but there is a clear need to fight fires
as well as plan for the future.

Cheers,
Adrian

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 10:30:35 -0700

> this suggest that we have in fact given up on WGs/our process?

I think *I* have (given up on using the WG process for process evolution). I 
am not sure at all that *we* have.

My reasons were pretty well summarized in the Paris plenary discussions 
(expecting the IESG to spend significant time on process evolution, 
especially when proposals involving major IESG restructuring were on the 
table).

I have expressed some of the same concerns on PESCI-discuss that John 
included in his note, so I'm not saying that current-PESCI is either perfect 
or the only alternative.

> Leslie.

Spencer

---

From: "Marshall Eubanks" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 13:44:38 -0400

On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 12:53:53 -0400
 Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]> wrote:

Dear Leslie;

May I suggest to everyone that the first step in having PESCI be a normal working group 
might be to start acting like a normal working group,
and stop cc:ing the IETF list with every message :) (Done here, BTW.)

Generally, "requirements" in a standards body are both implicit and explicit, and are
not based purely on the legal framework. There has to be  a certain amount of trust (and
trustworthiness) between the parties; if there is not, then things can go very wrong indeed. A
formal requirement to listen to good ideas (where-ever they come from) is basically never really
enforceable, but is always morally present whenever people are trying to act for the good of
a larger entity.

I see no signs that people have given up on the process, nor that it has broken down. The IETF
is becoming mature. Mature entities cannot operate in the same  fashion as start-ups; they require
more structure, and the BCPs will probably have  to be amended in the light of experience. I took
PESCI as another step in that direction. As for PESCI itself, it seems way  too soon to tell  if it
will be useful, but I can't see  why  its existence is evidence of a  disbelief in the process.

Or, maybe I missed something, but is a design team ever *required* to act on points raised on the
miling list ? IIRC IETF does not operate on votes.

Regards
Marshall Eubanks

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

---

From: Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 13:55:15 -0400

I've respected your cc trim, but will observe that you
are assuming PESCI is a WG, which is not clear to me,
and it doesn't strike me this is a PESCI issue.

> miling list ? IIRC IETF does not operate on votes.

I started writing that thought when I asked myself why I
would bother to contribute to the PESCI discuss mailing
list.  My time (like everyone else's on this list) is
valuable.  I *contribute* to WGs because it's a contribution
to an open WG effort, whether or not the design team picks up
on it.

If you want to say "it doesn't matter, it's all bits in the
wind until there's a final document proposal that goes through
last call", then that's fine:  it's your answer to my question.
But it also doesn't answer whether we need to bother with
WGs at all (for other topics).

Leslie.

---

From: "Marshall Eubanks" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 14:22:12 -0400

On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 13:55:15 -0400
> and it doesn't strike me this is a PESCI issue.

Oh, I just got tired of receiving  two copies of every message.

> WGs at all (for other topics).

No, that's not what I mean, more the opposite. I agree with you; 
I am not that humble, if I bother to
post to a WG list, I expect at least cursory attention. My meaning was
just that there is never a way to _enforce_ paying attention, or rather, to force
changes in direction  as a  result of paying attention. (I worked in the Government, I know better.)
However, I think that
most of us can judge if good ideas are getting  listened to or are being ignored.
In my limited experience, if a WG is too "wired", people will either leave or  complain.
In this case, I would expect loud  complaints.

I happen to think that the WG model works  surprisingly well, and that most of the time, WG members
are listened to and can affect the course of events. Such openness may not be rigorously
enforceable, but it can be approached asymptotically, which is really all that we can ask for.
I would hope that PESCI  would aspire to the  same standard.

> Leslie.

Marshall

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 14:51:27 -0400

--On Tuesday, 25 October, 2005 13:44 -0400 Marshall Eubanks
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> May I suggest to everyone that the first step in having PESCI
> be a normal working group  might be to start acting like a
> normal working group, and stop cc:ing the IETF list with every
> message :) (Done here, BTW.)

Marshall, may I suggest that your note contains the internal
contradiction that is a significant part of the problem I'm
seeing here, and maybe part of the one Leslie is seeing as well.

If this were a normal working group, it would have a charter, a
charter that would have been through a process of review and
approval by the community.  Its membership would be open, and
there would be no room for internal WG discussions that were not
visible  to the community.  If it held interim meetings or
teleconferences, there would be an expectation that those would
be announced to the community in advance and arrangements made
so that anyone who was inclined to do so and had the resources
could attend and participate.  It would have a chair who was not
the AD in charge of the relevant area, nor would that principle
be bypassed by a quickie substitution.  And we would hold the WG
--and its chair and AD-- responsible for paying serious
attention to community input.  So, whatever it is, it isn't a
normal working group.

Instead, if this were a normal group --design team or
otherwise-- that came together to organize a normal WG, it would
(normally) get a BOF slot only when it had demonstrated a fair
amount of coherence.  More important, the first (or only
significant) agenda item for that BOF would be the contents and
appropriateness of that charter, how the would-be WG intended to
conduct itself, perhaps the area to which the WG would be
assigned if there was doubt, etc.   There is virtually no chance
that it would get a BOF slot and then get a significant amount
of plenary time: it would be unlikely to get even a few
sentence's worth of announcement at a plenary, and certainly
would not get a half-hour or more.  So, whatever it is, it isn't
a normal group (design team or otherwise) trying to put a WG
together.
 
> Generally, "requirements" in a standards body are both
> implicit and explicit, and are not based purely on the legal
> framework. There has to be  a certain amount of trust (and
> trustworthiness) between the parties; if there is not, then
> things can go very wrong indeed. A formal requirement to
> listen to good ideas (where-ever they come from) is basically
> never really enforceable, but is always morally present
> whenever people are trying to act for the good of a larger
> entity.

Well, I certainly agree with this.  But part of our
justification for design teams is that they are often not
charged with producing an IETF-consensus result, merely a result
that is sufficiently clear and internally consistent to permit
community evaluation.  Without the constraints that implies, we
would be likely to get the worst sorts of design-by-committee --
not merely a camel, but perhaps a horse with gills and flippers
at one end.   The difficulty with, and danger of, design teams
is that they need to produce one or more proposals for community
consideration.  If they operate in an environment in which their
proposals are essentially the only options that can or will be
considered (perhaps modulo fine tuning), then we will have blown
off all sorts of important aspects of what makes the IETF
function and be taken seriously.

This isn't, however, one of those sorts of design teams either.
Those teams usually report their results back to a WG or, as
discussed above, a WG-in-formation, and then more or less close
down, leaving the WG to sort out the proposal.   That doesn't
seem to be the plan here either: instead, we get a short BOF
session, a fifteen minute discussion of how to proceed, then an
almost-immediate 30 minute report to a plenary, followed by an
"open meeting" session whose listed "Admin and Operations topics
only" theme would not seem to admit of discussion of the PESCI
issues.  So, whatever this is, it isn't a design team in the
usual sense.   

I posted my note to the IETF list because I think the IETF list
ought to be discussing this basic principles here, not just the
subset of people who are inclined to watch PESCI's
sausage-making through the cloudy windows of a -discuss list.
To me, the question the IETF should be discussing is the degree
to which we are willing to abandon our principles of open
discussion, responsibility to the community, and decision and
evaluation chains that don't involve people talking to
themselves in order to figure out a new way to do the things
that the existing processes are intended to protect.

And that is why I believe Leslie's question was appropriate for
the IETF list as well.    If this were a normal working group,
or on track to become a normal working group, the answers would
probably be different.

     john

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 12:22:09 -0700

Wherever else this discussion heads off to, can we assume that "reporting 
from the BOF to the plenary after a break" is OFF the table? Even 24 hours 
to absorb the discussion would be an improvement...

Spencer

---

From: "Marshall Eubanks" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 15:29:41 -0400

Dear John;

On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 14:51:27 -0400
> seeing here, and maybe part of the one Leslie is seeing as well.

Reading through this, I am beginning to share your concerns. I can
understand short-circuiting certain aspects of the process (such as the time
to appear at Plenary), but I think that having a confusing process 
is very dangerous. Is this
going to be a new model for IETF processes ? If so,  what is  it  exactly ?
Is it  documented ? Did it pass any  form of review ?

It is also dangerous  to throw out a solution that works, albeit with
flaws,  for one that has never been implemented but appears to be easier. It may not be.

In this particular case, I think that one risk is that the effort might collapse into a
morass of arguing about process - really, arguing about how to argue. Such
short cuts may deliver neither agreement nor speed.

Regards
Marshall

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 15:39:50 -0400

--On Tuesday, 25 October, 2005 15:29 -0400 Marshall Eubanks
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Reading through this, I am beginning to share your concerns. I
> can understand short-circuiting certain aspects of the process
> (such as the time to appear at Plenary), but I think that
> having a confusing process  is very dangerous. Is this
> going to be a new model for IETF processes ? If so,  what is
> it  exactly ? Is it  documented ? Did it pass any  form of
> review ?

Those all seem to be key questions.  And each of them gets more
important going forward: were the plan for PESCI to report in
Vancouver perhaps get out a quick rev to the I-D immediately
thereafter, and then shut down to be replaced by a normal
process, I wouldn't be worried enough to raise these issues at
this point.  But that does not appear to be the plan.

> It is also dangerous  to throw out a solution that works,
> albeit with flaws,  for one that has never been implemented
> but appears to be easier. It may not be.
> 
> In this particular case, I think that one risk is that the
> effort might collapse into a morass of arguing about process -
> really, arguing about how to argue. Such short cuts may
> deliver neither agreement nor speed.

Agreed.  And the concern about, and risk of, touching off an
argument about how to argue was exactly why I decided to say
nothing for the last several months.  At this point, the issues
with the process being followed --rather than speculation about
what that process might be-- seem to be significant enough to
risk a meta-meta-discussion.

    john

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 13:59:38 -0700

Oh boy...

> important going forward: were the plan for PESCI to report 

Perhaps I've become too jaded, but I'm watching this exchange, while 
once again marveling at how much I (once again) agree with John's 
statement of concerns over what is taking place, and...

I'm noticing that we are 3+ years after Yokohama and as nearly as I can 
tell we are enmeshed in a discussion about the process for pursuing the 
process for changing the process. 

I also note that there have been any number of thoughtful and 
interesting proposals put forward over the last few years, but that that 
does not seem to get in the way of starting each new change efforts afresh.

So, you know all the other standards groups that we spent years 
lambasting for their crufty, slow, excessive bureaucracies...?

What *used* to mark the IETF as distinctive was its ability to focus on 
practical issues in a timely fashion and make real forward progress.

I really do understand that each new effort, including the current one, 
is extremely well-intentioned.

Unfortunately, that is not enough to make any of them useful.

d/

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 17:22:51 -0400

> practical issues in a timely fashion and make real forward progress.

I'm increasingly convinced that the decision-making process is
no longer appropriate for what the IETF has grown into.  There
seem to be several problems - for example, this kind of
decision-making is easy to disrupt.  Another is that as the
organization has grown there's a greater diversity of intentions
among the participants and the odds that there are participants
unwilling to compromise go up.  Another is that if it's
difficult to find people with the skills to manage these kinds
of discussions when you have three dozen working groups, it's even
more difficult to find the people when you have one hundred working
groups.  And it also seems to me that there's a big problem with
getting decisions through the stack (that word again) of
approvals before something becomes implementable.  In fact,
unlike some of those other bodies, there is no individual who
can go out and say "make <x> so" for anything in the standards-
making process.  That brings transparency, but there's a cost
for that transparency.

A difficulty with trying to change the decision-making process
is that it's so intimately connected with the membership/participation
model, and that question has a third-rail quality to it.   But
I think that the reason that decisions aren't getting made is
because the process we use for making decisions has become an
impediment.  What works well for a small group of people who are
more-or-less on the same page may not work at all well for a
large group of people with significantly divergent interests.

Melinda

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 04:50:50 +0200

At 23:22 25/10/2005, Melinda Shore wrote:
>no longer appropriate for what the IETF has grown into.

Melinda,
The Roman Republic constitution had a solution to that: a 6 month 
Dictator with the mission to restore democracy. That worked well (and 
seldom) until the size of the Republic lead the Dictator to become 
permanent as an Imperator.

If we consider RFC 1958 there might be a solution. To analyse the 
Internet architecture as separated building areas. Each of them 
having its own IETF. To bring back each unit to an area of shared 
competence and interest.

I experimented Harald's suggestion. The current system is WG 
consensus by exhaustion and IETF consensus by abstention (how can 
Members be competent and have a vision in the area of every LC).

For example, an IAB appeal on the architectural consistency and 
adequacy of a proposition comes only when it as been worked, approved 
and confirmed by  the IESG. Too late.

>There seem to be several problems - for example, this kind of 
>decision-making is easy to disrupt.

The only documented counter powers in the proposition above are 
disruption and appeals to IESG and IAB.
There are many ways of disrupting. They should probably be compiled 
in a complement to RFC 3774 to better understand them.

>Another is that as the organization has grown there's a greater 
>diversity of intentions among the participants and the odds that 
>there are participants unwilling to compromise go up.

Here I must disagree on the term "compromise". We are dealing with 
mechanical/societal systems. Bytes and Users do not compromise. Our 
role is to forget personal or corporate agenda and to discover the 
technical solution everyone can use (consensus).

>Another is that if it's difficult to find people with the skills to 
>manage these kinds of discussions when you have three dozen working 
>groups, it's even more difficult to find the people when you have 
>one hundred working groups.

Yes.But there is worse. There is also a lack of competences. A lack 
of competence on the discussed matter is not a big problem when the 
participants' caliber and humility permits them to quickly get up to date.

>large group of people with significantly divergent interests.

Yes.
jfc

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 15:06:04 +0200

I'm not even going to attempt to read this thread today (evening in
Beijing after a long flight and a long day).

But don't imagine that I and the PESCI team aren't aware of
the meta problem and believe that we have a shot at fixing it
this time.

I will read the thread as soon as I can but may I ask that
people try to do what I asked: focus on section 4 of the
draft and on how that section can be more tightly focused
on specific principles for change.

And I really don't see the value of cross-posting when the
pesci-discuss list exists for exactly this discussion.

     Brian

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 09:50:28 -0400

Brian,

Let me make this short enough to encourage easy reading when you
wake up...

> pesci-discuss list exists for exactly this discussion.

Much of the discussion has moved to that list.  However...

To the extent to which there is a serious concern that the
operation of PESCI and the pesci-discuss list are an abuse of
process, the IETF list is exactly the right place to have that
particular discussion.  

    john

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 16:15:28 +0200

> process, the IETF list is exactly the right place to have that

So I will respond here.

1. How can there possibly be an abuse of process when there is
no proposal on the table yet? If we succeed in forging some degree
of consensus about a set of principles, then will be the time
to apply due process to test for rough consensus in the IETF.
We could do that by forming a WG or we could do it by the non-WG
route, in full accordance with RFC 2026 process.

2. This thread, and its spin-offs on the pesci-discuss list,
neatly illustrate the exact problem I hope PESCI can resolve.
We (and that is inclusive) repeatedly fall into a very trivial
recursion on "what is the process for changing the process;
we need a process for that; what is the process for...?" My
desired output from PESCI is a set of principles to get us out
of that recursion.

What I think is more important is just that - a tight focus
on sifting and agreeing on that set of principles.

I do understand all the arguments and concerns, but we need
to get ourselves out of that recursive loop.

    Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 16:23:51 +0200

Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> Wherever else this discussion heads off to, can we assume that 
> "reporting from the BOF to the plenary after a break" is OFF the table? 
> Even 24 hours to absorb the discussion would be an improvement...

I would agree in principle but
a) the agenda is very constrained already
b) I can't imagine saying *nothing* in plenary but clearly it
    cannot be a report beyond the very bare facts (we met,
    we discussed, we [dis]agreed).

     Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 16:34:10 +0200

> no longer appropriate for what the IETF has grown into.

The PESCI team tended to consider this as one of the things
we couldn't consider changing, and therefore there's nothing in
section 4 suggesting any change in this area. Are you arguing for
a change, and in that case can you offer a draft principle?

    Brian

>  There

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 10:43:30 -0400

>    we discussed, we [dis]agreed).

Personally I think that can amount to a very substantial report.  You
can take "bare facts" and distill out trends and issues.  What were
the fundamental issues brought up and discussed?  Where do we have
consensus already (this will show shared core values)?  Where we
didn't have consensus, what are the *types* of positions?  And so on.
That gives the plenary a snapshot of the agreements and problems that
the pesci process is going to be up against, and the plenary can take
it from there.

swb

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 11:01:14 -0400

> coherent enough to get meeting time, much less plenary time?

I think the problem here is that we only have a few categories of
activities.  What do you call a non-plenary activity that is not a WG?
All we have is a BOF, but BOF has a lot of connotations.

> 	* Has a known and strong position on how the standards track

etc.  I think this is silly.  This isn't about power, it's about
initiative.  We avoid concentrating too much power in one place but if
you want something to move forward you had better be glad that someone
pushes it, and please note there is a difference between taking the
steps necessary to *offer* ideas and *imposing* them.  In my opinion
this list is a red herring.  Otherwise please show me a specific abuse
of power.  

> tuned" reports that characterized the admin restructuring

Declaring guilt before the crime is yet another rhetorical trick.

> will be interpreted and processed.  

Exactly.  So calm down and let's not cry doom just yet.

> am not feeling very good about that right now.

Suppose the IETF Chair wanted to come up with an idea to present.  He
writes up a draft and then circulates it among a small group for
discussion and polishing.  He submits it and, being the IETF Chair,
gets a time slot for presentation and discussion.  The only thing
Brian did that you wouldn't do is that he announced beforehand that he
was getting a group together.  Every IETF Chair has polished process
ideas in this way.  Way back, when we first tossed around the concept
of working groups and areas and the IESG, Phill Gross called a few of
his friends to help him work out how to organize things before
presenting his ideas.  I didn't think PESCI needed to be as organized
as it was, but Brian did so *because* he was trying to be sensitive.
So I think you have completely the wrong attitude toward this.
Everyone has done something like this; Brian is doing it in a more
public, process-oriented way than his predecessors.

> process, the IETF list is exactly the right place to have that

All right, but only for that one question (which is a red herring,
since there is no "operation" of pesci).

Scott

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 11:13:16 -0400

(limiting to pesci-discuss)

> asks, but that's a high-risk negative motivation.

First, there is no piece of IETF standards process that requires a WG
design team to listen to WG discussion either.  They can reject it, in
which case their solution will likely be rejected.  Second, since
PESCI has no power, what is the concern?  

> this suggest that we have in fact given up on WGs/our process?

I don't know that PESCI blurs lines, but it clearly doesn't fit in the
existing ones.  However, that doesn't have to mean that we have given
up on our process yet.  I certainly hope not :-).

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 11:25:13 -0400

> large group of people with significantly divergent interests.

I love it.  Please (please!) suggest solutions.

On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 04:50:50AM +0200, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin allegedly wrote:
> The current system is WG 

Yes.

> a change, and in that case can you offer a draft principle?

As Brian says, we didn't think it would be legitimate to change the
process for changing the process -- it's a boostrapping problem, we
have to use what we have now to get to the next level.

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 11:53:06 -0400

> a change, and in that case can you offer a draft principle?

I'd be happy to try, although making changes to the decision-making
process tends to imply changes to the "membership" model as well,
and I'm chary of going anywhere near that.  But it's worth a taking
a look at what might be good base principles for decision-making
in the IETF, and perhaps just see where that goes in terms of the
rest of it.

Melinda

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 17:12:38 -0700

Folks,

> have to use what we have now to get to the next level.

This is the part I simply do not understand.  We have had lots of process 
changes, over the years, involving a variety of "processes".  The most 
important characteristics that they have had in common are:

1. A problem was perceived and appears to be considered a problem by "the 
community"

2. A proposal for change was formulated and promoted (errrr... discussed.)

3. Feedback from the community prompted iteration on the proposal until 
enough support appeared to be present

4. The change was adopted.

Instead we now have two things that greet every single serious proposal for 
change:

1. Claims that it's folliwing the wrong process, or that first we have to 
discuss and revise the process, and

2. Death by a thousand criticisms, rather than a collaborative tone to 
improve it.

When we stop focussing on the process of change, and start focusing on 
making changes, we are likely to make much better progress.

d/

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 05:53:35 +0200

> in the IETF, and perhaps just see where that goes in terms of the

Perhaps our non-membership model and the rough consensus decision making 
method belong in a separate draft called "sacred cows of the IETF" - things 
that we need to think about, which aren't ****basic**** to the IETF, but 
where changing them is such a major effort that it should only be taken on 
if we're *really* sure we need to change them?

           Harald, tongue only slightly in cheek

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 12:36:41 +0200

At 05:53 28/10/2005, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>Perhaps our non-membership model and the rough consensus decision 
>making method belong in a separate draft called "sacred cows of the 
>IETF" - things that we need to think about, which aren't 
>****basic**** to the IETF, but where changing them is such a major 
>effort that it should only be taken on if we're *really* sure we 
>need to change them?

May be not to change the principle (open to all) but the 
practicalities. I would think advisable that posting on the IETF 
lists be submitted to a blog like page in order to check the reality 
of the person, his background/visions and his professional/commercial 
involvements. I suppose these would help a lot the WG work as people 
could explain their positions, refer to them and adapt as the WG work 
progress.
jfc

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 13:34:01 +0200

Dave Crocker wrote:
> This is the part I simply do not understand.  We have had lots of 
> process changes, over the years, involving a variety of "processes".  
> The most important characteristics that they have had in common are:
> 
> 1. A problem was perceived and appears to be considered a problem by 
> "the community"
> 
> Instead we now have two things that greet every single serious proposal 
> for change:
> 
> 1. Claims that it's folliwing the wrong process, or that first we have 
> to discuss and revise the process, and
> 

There's obviously something wrong here, because I violently agree
with your last sentence. That's exactly where I want to get to.
Er, that is what we need section 4 of the draft to become: principles
for the changes we need to make.

    Brian

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 11:55:52 -0400

>>>>> "Brian" == Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]> writes:

    Brian> Spencer Dawkins wrote:
    >> "reporting from the BOF to the plenary after a break" is OFF
    >> the table? Even 24 hours to absorb the discussion would be an
    >> improvement...

    Brian> I would agree in principle but a) the agenda is very
    Brian> constrained already b) I can't imagine saying *nothing* in
    Brian> plenary but clearly it cannot be a report beyond the very
    Brian> bare facts (we met, we discussed, we [dis]agreed).

It's my opinion as one of the sponsoring ADs that the scheduling
problem is critical.  I'm working with Brian, Bert and marsha to find
a proposed solution.

If I find one, I will propose it on pesci-discuss and copy the ietf
list.

--Sam

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 09:02:11 -0700

Brian,

improve it.
 > with your last sentence.

Don't worry:  Sampling error.

If I say enough (randomly) different things, eventually you are bound to 
agree with one of them...

d/

---

From: Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 19:50:10 -0400

I really hate to beat a dead horse, but not quite so
much as I hate being misunderstood.

A bit of my message that you chose not to quote and

> folks to hash through issues, review the document, and contribute

Why are people talking on this list?  In a WG, one contributes
to the WG effort, which has a *charter*, and if the design
team fails to listen to the WG, it is (one hopes) fired,
and the WG finds a different way to solve its chartered
problem.  *That's* why we post to WG lists, right?  We're
part of the work.

Here, we're all just yakking.

Which is fine, as long as we *all* remember that.

Some people are here because they care about the outcome,
and will discuss it in any available venue.  Fine.

Some people are *not* here, even though they care about
the outcome, because they know this list is just a "-discuss"
list.

Which is fine, as long as we *all* remember that, too.

Leslie.

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 08:02:57 -0400

> much as I hate being misunderstood.

Boy, do I know that feeling!

> Which is fine, as long as we *all* remember that, too.

OK, that all makes sense.  Is the point, here and below, that there is
nothing to measure the output of the "design team" against?  If so, I
agree that there's nothing external.  The draft sets up its own goals
and measures.  Now the community has to make an evaluation, first of
those measures.  In fact, the point of bringing up all those
principles is to clarify the community's conceptual framework for
evaluating both the PESCI work and what will come after.  Am I any
closer to understanding what you're saying?  Time to let this go and
do it in person?

Scott

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 08:50:46 -0700

> There's obviously something wrong here, because I violently agree

Don't worry.  It probably doesn't mean anything significant.

It's one of those characteristics of statistics.  If I say enough (randomly) 
different things, eventually you will agree with one of them...

d/