Subject: [Pesci-discuss] Driving proposals

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 12:32:18 -0500

--Margaret wrote, in part:

>>   - it's not realistic to assume the author of such a
>>   proposal would drive it through all by him/herself.
>
> This can be said of virtually all proposals in the IETF
> (including technical ones).  Without a critical mass of people
> who are willing to work on a given proposal, the proposal
> won't go forward.
>
> I don't see why process proposals should be an exception to
> this...

Margaret,

I don't see why process proposals should be different either. 
But let's examine what makes them different.  Suppose I show up 
with a technical proposal that I want to drive forward.  I 
discuss it with an AD or two, feel out interest in a WG, or 
maybe work with a group of colleagues as a design team to move 
it forward on a non-WG path.  While there have been exceptions, 
I've found that ADs, and others, who are consulted about such 
things are helpful and constructive.  If my ideas are 
brain-damaged, I'm told that, but it comes with an explanation 
of why I need treatment.  And, if they are merely weak, there is 
a dialog about how they can be made better.

Now, let's compare that to what has happened to several process 
proposals recently.  A significant fraction of the IESG lines 
up, either at microphones or on mailing lists, and delivers a 
message that amounts to "can't work, won't work, and, even if it 
could work, we wouldn't support it because it would change the 
way we do things" (I know I'm exaggerating a bit, but only a 
bit).  While, unlike Pekka, I considered the Pesci BOF 
discussion mostly constructive, I have un-fond memories of 
newtrk sessions in which IESG members have lined up to make 
speeches, controlling the microphone sufficiently in practice to 
squeeze out any ideas.  The amount of constructive dialogue, 
with suggestions coming from the IESG members stating the 
objections has been, well, minimal.

While there are some other differences (and I very much agree 
with several of the comments Ted made yesterday) _that_, IMO, is 
why process proposals are different from technical ones right 
now.   If a proposal isn't going anywhere without IESG support, 
and the IESG appears to go on the attack when it appears, there 
is little point in trying to pursue it further.

    john

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

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 09:41:03 -0800

> While there are some other differences (and I very much agree with 
> several of the comments Ted made yesterday) _that_, IMO, is why process 
> proposals are different from technical ones right now.   If a proposal 
> isn't going anywhere without IESG support, and the IESG appears to go on 
> the attack when it appears, there is little point in trying to pursue it 
> further.

A technical proposal has a target user population "out there" in the public 
community.

A process proposal has a target user population right here, since our shared 
environment.

Whereas a technical proposal can succeed even if it is marginalized among 
the rest of the IETF community, a process proposal cannot.

When the leadership of the IETF demonstrates, at best, benign neglect of 
significant change effort, it simply will not happen.

d/

-- 

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

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 12:43:59 -0500

--On Thursday, November 10, 2005 09:41 -0800 Dave Crocker 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>...
> A technical proposal has a target user population "out there"
> in the public community.
>
> A process proposal has a target user population right here,
> since our shared environment.
>
> Whereas a technical proposal can succeed even if it is
> marginalized among the rest of the IETF community, a process
> proposal cannot.
>
> When the leadership of the IETF demonstrates, at best, benign
> neglect of significant change effort, it simply will not
> happen.

At the risk of further extending the recent harmony, I 
completely agree with Dave's analysis.

    john

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 18:29:43 -0500

>>>>> "John" == John C Klensin <[email-masked]> writes:

    John> --Margaret wrote, in part:
    John> Now, let's compare that to what has happened to several
    John> process proposals recently.  A significant fraction of the
    John> IESG lines up, either at microphones or on mailing lists,
    John> and delivers a message that amounts to "can't work, won't
    John> work, and, even if it could work, we wouldn't support it
    John> because it would change the way we do things" (I know I'm
    John> exaggerating a bit, but only a bit).  While, unlike Pekka, I
    John> considered the Pesci BOF discussion mostly constructive, I
    John> have un-fond memories of newtrk sessions in which IESG
    John> members have lined up to make speeches, controlling the
    John> microphone sufficiently in practice to squeeze out any
    John> ideas.  The amount of constructive dialogue, with
    John> suggestions coming from the IESG members stating the
    John> objections has been, well, minimal.

No, John, your exaggerating a lot more than just a bit.  This is the
sort of response that seriously causes me to question whether being on
the IESG is a job worth doing.  Just because you don't like an
objection or because an objection is not actionable does not mean the
objection is not constructive.

I don't know what discussions you are talking about, but it seemed to
me from the end of the Paris newtrk session that the there were
several directions that both IESG and non-IESG members of the room
could end up living with.  In my mind that counts as constructive; I'm
sorry you demand more.

Finally, I'd argue that the particular style of message you are using
here is particularly destructive.  You have specific discussions in
mind; you don't even bother to cite them in order to give people a
chance to evaluate whether you have a point or are just using
emotionally charged language as a form of assertion.  Also, by
avoiding specifics, you prevent people from actually considering real
data and either improving the way they approach problems or giving
constructive suggestions to others.

If this is the best level of discourse we can find together, then I
personally have no interest in another two years of process hell.  The
IESg cannot be the enemy; the people proposing change cannot be the
enemy.  If we can't get past the need to take sides and have enemies,
we cannot succeed.

--Sam

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 23:23:37 -0500

While I stand behind everything I said, I'll admit that my language
was more emotional than needed.  I'm sorry about that.

I do believe that we need to treat each other as parties working
together to solve common problems.  The IESG is trying to be as
constructive as it knows how.  I believe those making proposals are
trying to be constructive too.  If you don't think someone succeeded
in being constructive, point it out and work with them to figure out
what they meant to say or how they should say it.

Being constructive is not the same as agreeing.  Being constructive is
sometimes not even the same as working to solve a problem.  I may
honestly believe something is not a problem or believe it is not worth
the time to solve.  Blocking others is not constructive but building a
consensus against a particular process change can be.

However many of the proposals are blocked.  We need to figure out how
to unwedge them.  I've been thinking hard about this since pesci.  I
hope to have a proposal soon; I'd like to talk it over with brian
first.  Of course, he may well convince me it's a bad idea, and I may
end up going back to the drawing board.

--Sam

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 17:15:34 +0100

I must admit I've been in catch-up mode this week and put process
reform low in the heap, so I have thought about all this less
than Sam has. I'm also waiting for postable draft minutes to be
ready. But yes, we need to (a) be constructive (b) remember that
we got 300 documents processed in the last year, so more things
are working than an outside reader of this list might imagine and
(c) avoid getting further wrapped round our axles.

(c) involves trying to extract simple conclusions from a
complex discussion, and that's where I think we need to focus.

     Brian