Subject: Dallas Chair's social?

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 15:44:12 -0600

I'll presume there's some interest an a chair's social for Dallas, as  
we have enjoyed such gatherings at several prior meetings.

I wouldn't  presume to  organize one independently, but have  
suggested a possible venue to the esteemed Henrik for consideration.  
Of course, should such desire be evidenced, I'd be happy to help out  
on this one occasion since I do live in the general vicinity and do  
partake of the occasional malted beverage and high-calorie munchy bit.

Is there any particular preference for Thursday over Wednesday  
evenings? If not, Wednesday is easier to schedule as the locals tend  
to start the weekend on Thursday.

--
Dean

---

From: "Bernard Aboba" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 15:22:49 -0800

A number of WGs are now requiring a "Quorum" for various purposes, such as
taking on WG work items, advancement of documents, etc. 

Is there any documentation available on "Quorum" policies, either within
individual WGs, Areas or for the IETF as a whole?

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 15:32:15 -0800

>taking on WG work items, advancement of documents, etc.

Yow. So, we're not as good at math as we appear to be. If *any* WG 
can get a quorum of their "members" (the people subscribed to the WG 
mailing list) to even raise their virtual hands, I would be shocked.

>individual WGs, Areas or for the IETF as a whole?

The only RFCs that define a quorum (as far as grep seems to find) are 
for NomCom and the Trustees.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 15:40:27 -0800

At 3:32 PM -0800 3/9/06, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>Yow. So, we're not as good at math as we appear to be. If *any* WG can get a quorum of their "members" (the people subscribed to the WG mailing list) to even raise their virtual hands, I would be shocked

DNSEXT is the only one I personally know of that has a policy like this.  The
core of it was put forward by the chairs as:

>During the Vancouver meeting the folk in the room consented with the proposal to only forward work to the IESG when we received minimum number of statements of thorough review.
>
>We would like re-iterate this proposal on the list and set the minimum number to five.
>
>That is:
>
>We will not forward work if during a working group last call not at least five people have gone on record that they thoroughly reviewed the most current version of an I-D (and there is rough consensus to forward the work).
>
>We would like to ask the working groups consent for this.

I don't think this is intended to be a quorum.  It looks to me like its intended as a minimum
level of support for a document before the WG claims responsibility for forwarding it.
That doesn't stop any other avenue of progress, but it's a way of checking whether
the support for a document is active or "silence equals consent."

Note that my only role in DNSEXT is occasional contributor.

			regards,
				Ted Hardie

---

From: "Bernard Aboba" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 17:14:19 -0800

Ted Hardie said:

"DNSEXT is the only one I personally know of that has a policy like this."

My understanding is that "quorum demonstration" is now required for all O&M
documents forwarded to the IESG. 

So I was looking for clarification of what the requirement is, exactly, and
how others are implementing it. 

For example:

a. Does the "quorum" requirement apply only to the last version of the
document?  Or do comments received on previous versions count, too? 

b. How long should the "quorum" determination period be?  What happens to
reviews posted after the posted end date?  Are they ignored?  

c. If a document does not pass the "quorum" requirement, does this mean that
it cannot be published at all?  Or is it downgraded to WG Informational?  Or
maybe to an Individual submission?  Who makes the determination? 

d. Do WG chairs count in the "quorum" determination?  

e. Are "quorum" requirements only imposed at the end of the process, or at
the beginning too?

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 17:40:38 -0800

Hi -

> From: "Bernard Aboba" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 5:14 PM
> Subject: RE: "Quorum" Policies?
...
> documents forwarded to the IESG. 
...

That's certainly news to this O&M chair.  I would have remembered
a phrase like "quorum demonstration", particularly given the way
we look at "membership".  Has there been an announcement
that I missed?

On the other hand, requiring that there is "critical mass" (a *very*
different concept from "quorum") before even starting work is
long-standing practice, and not just in O&M.

Randy

---

From: David Kessens <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 18:58:32 -0800

Randy,

> long-standing practice, and not just in O&M.

I think Bernard's mail probably tried to say the same thing.

Bert & me have been emphasizing to our wg chairs more and more that it
is a good idea to adopt a policy that requires a minimum number of
reviews before working group adoptation and the same thing before a
document gets send to the IESG.

We don't have an exact policy, we leave it to the individual working
group chairs to implement this idea in the context of the particular
working group that they are running (eg. a big working group can
probably have stricter requirements than a working group that is
smaller).

Personally, I believe it could be useful to adapt a somewhat more
universal policy in IETF regarding this matter. However, I am also
very wary of more process and rules so I believe it should be more
something along the lines like 'good management guidelines' as opposed
to hard rules.

David Kessens
---

---

From: Lakshminath Dondeti <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 19:07:02 -0800

>the support for a document is active or "silence equals consent."

Right, I recall hearing that the notion of "silence equals consent" 
is bad for the IETF.  I am not sure where and when.  The other 
suggestion was that even if everyone agrees to something, it would 
make sense for the chairs to have some of those folks say that they 
have read the I-D and think it is in a good shape to be forwarded.

I hate rules, and like to see these kinds of things as 
guidelines.  So, I have been personally requesting MSEC participants 
to review drafts in LC and post comments to the list.  Our 
participation is lower than that in some other groups so that meant 
1-3 reviews and not 5.

But, of course, that doesn't mean those I-Ds were not pushed back for 
more revisions at every stage after the WGLC.  I appreciate and 
welcome those reviews (after all the review process is expected of 
the IETF), and in at least one case, I consulted one of those 
reviewers in answering to the questions from the ADs.

regards,
Lakshminath

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 10:19:04 +0100

Henrik will work on this.

    Brian

Dean Willis wrote:
> I wouldn't  presume to  organize one independently, but have  suggested 
> a possible venue to the esteemed Henrik for consideration.  Of course, 
> should such desire be evidenced, I'd be happy to help out  on this one 
> occasion since I do live in the general vicinity and do  partake of the 
> occasional malted beverage and high-calorie munchy bit.
> 
> evenings? If not, Wednesday is easier to schedule as the locals tend  to 
> start the weekend on Thursday.
> 
> -- 
> Dean
> 
>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 10:26:17 +0100

Whatever WG chairs and ADs choose to do within the rules
laid down by the relevant BCPs, especially RFC 2026 and 2418,
seems OK. If a WG chair tells a WG "I am not willing to
declare rough consensus for a draft unless I see X people
supporting it and at least Y thorough reviews" I wouldn't be
shocked. But this should be made clear in advance, so that people
don't falsely asssume that silence means consent.

     Brian

---

From: Ólafur Guðmundsson /DNSEXT co-chair <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 09:54:37 -0500

>how others are implementing it.

The DNSEXT (and DNSOP) have made review requirements

>document?  Or do comments received on previous versions count, too?

This is a judgement call, IMHO the older reviews count as long the
changes from the version reviewed are small. But small is a relative
term.

>reviews posted after the posted end date?  Are they ignored?

We require these during Working group last call.
If we do not get enough reviews during last call we issue a plea for more
reviews.
Once we close LC and declare consensus further reviews are IGNORED.

>maybe to an Individual submission?  Who makes the determination?

I do not have an good answer for this one, we are currently working on
3 documents in the WG that fall into this category.
Any guidance on this issue is going to be helpful.

>d. Do WG chairs count in the "quorum" determination?

No, we do not. If we did and selectively contribute reviews then we are
opening up an appeals nightmare.

>e. Are "quorum" requirements only imposed at the end of the process, or at

We only apply this during working group last call.
Right now we have a policy that most new work has to be published as
independent draft and then the working group elects to adopt the work.
But sometimes the WG sponsors documents and version 00 is WG document.

New item to your questionnaire:

f. Are there implementation requirements imposed on the process?

For many changes we require multiple implantations before we forward
protocol change to IESG. For example on a document at the IESG right
now we had to make a change in digest algorithms based on IETF last call
comments. Before I signed off on the changes 3 different implementations
where required to make sure examples where correct.

Keep in mind DNSEXT is a different beast than many other working groups,
we are in protocol maintenance mode on a core protocol, if we mess it up
the Internet can crumble.

         Olafur

---

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 07:27:35 -0800

> don't falsely asssume that silence means consent.

I think your comment relates to the sometimes difficult task
of deciding there is WG consensus to accept an individual
draft as a WG draft.

Lately, I have been insisting that people who propose new work
to the NETCONF WG actually implement and use their proposals first.
Not surprisingly, there was a lot of resistance to this policy.

Some verbal support from professional SDO attenders is not enough.
Verbal commitment (from people who have no authority to do so)
to release products using the finished protocol, based on an
initial draft, is very unreliable.

You have to realize who the true stakeholders are, and get
them to take some action that indicates support.  Running code
has always been the best indicator of support.

>     Brian

Andy

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 10:13:58 -0800

I think there is a difference between a required "quorum" of WG list 
responses and sufficient reviews. My experience is the best and most 
reliable reviews come when they are solicited.

                jak

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Lakshminath Dondeti" <[email-masked]>
To: "Ted Hardie" <[email-masked]>; "Paul Hoffman" 
<[email-masked]>; "Bernard Aboba" <[email-masked]>; 
"'Working Group Chairs'" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 7:07 PM
Subject: Re: "Quorum" Policies?

> Right, I recall hearing that the notion of "silence equals consent" is bad 
> for the IETF.  I am not sure where and when.  The other suggestion was 
> that even if everyone agrees to something, it would make sense for the 
> chairs to have some of those folks say that they have read the I-D and 
> think it is in a good shape to be forwarded.
>
> I hate rules, and like to see these kinds of things as guidelines.  So, I 
> have been personally requesting MSEC participants to review drafts in LC 
> and post comments to the list.  Our participation is lower than that in 
> some other groups so that meant 1-3 reviews and not 5.
>
> But, of course, that doesn't mean those I-Ds were not pushed back for more 
> revisions at every stage after the WGLC.  I appreciate and welcome those 
> reviews (after all the review process is expected of the IETF), and in at 
> least one case, I consulted one of those reviewers in answering to the 
> questions from the ADs.
>
> regards,
> Lakshminath
>
>

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 12:56:18 -0600

Wednesday is now the night all Transport Area chairs are getting together 
to thank both departing ADs and welcome both new ADs to the Area.

At 10:19 AM 3/10/2006 +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>I wouldn't  presume to  organize one independently, but have  suggested a 
>>possible venue to the esteemed Henrik for consideration.  Of course, 
>>-- Dean

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 11:05:09 -0800

Hi -

> From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Ted Hardie" <[email-masked]>; "Paul Hoffman" <[email-masked]>; "Bernard Aboba" <[email-masked]>;
"'Working Group Chairs'" <[email-masked]>; "Lakshminath Dondeti" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 10:13 AM
...

So can we PLEASE stop referring to it as a "quorum"???
That is the wrong word on so many levels.

The responsibility is to ensure that a document has had
sufficient / adequate review at each stage of the process,
and, in the case of standards track stuff, that there is
sufficient / adequate support from probable implementors.

This is not new.

Neither of these is necessarily a function of the number of
working group participants, nor are they constants.
Trying to nail it down any more than it already is will probably
have unintended undesirable consequences.

Randy
Randy

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 10:43:59 +0100

Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
...
> Right, I recall hearing that the notion of "silence equals consent" is 
> bad for the IETF.  

That's why I have been known to ask in straw poll:

Who agrees?
Who disagrees?
Who doesn't care?
Who doesn't know?
Who isn't raising their hand at all?
Who isn't listening to me?

In a face to face meeting this generally gets enough of a laugh
to attract everybody's attention, and then I can ask the
first three questions again.

This is very hard to do electronically, but IMHO chairs really do need to
dig a bit deeper when there is very little response one way or
the other on a draft or an issue. As several people have said, we can't
have formal numerical rules in the IETF process, but if few (electronic)
hands are raised, how can we judge consensus?

    Brian