Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] apps-discuss Digest, Vol 88, Issue 23

From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 08:48:53 +0000

In this case the relevant AD is probably the one who has to, if someone 
has to sort things out and make a decision. That is Barry now, right? 
It may also be his co-AD, or MSK, but they will all agree, do it does 
not really matter which one if them decides.

Arnt

---

From: t.petch <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 11:28:40 +0100

----- Original Message -----
From: "Nick Matavka" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 1:16 AM
> Julian Reschke wrote:
> > Nick, this WG discusses whether work on Gopher fits here. Rants like
> > these are not helpful at all, and likely will affect the outcome.
>
> > FWIW, I fully agree with Larry.
>
> > Best regards, Julian
>
> I didn't mean to be ranty, Julian.  I meant to raise a point, that's
all,
> and I still haven't received an answer.
>
> *Who* decides what a "high-value project" is?  I think it's an
important
> question.  If it's group "consensus", how is "consensus" defined?
Does
> consensus mean EVERYONE agrees (unanimous), or simply the prevailing
wind
> of opinion?  Larry makes good points, I agree, but his tone of voice
is
> infuriating sometimes.  What is the definition of a high-value
project,
> anyway?  To whom should the project be highly valuable?  If the answer
to
> this is, "the Internet-using public," who judges what is valuable to
the
> public?

Nick

The IETF is a bottom-up organisation, even if it has imported management
ideas such as WG Chairs, appeals, the IESG and ADs so it is very much
us, for some meaning of us, that decides.  I participate here as an
individual, very much so, never having been or going to be anything
else, such as Chair, AD etc, nor do I contribute much as an author of
I-Ds.  Yet the approach of the IETF is to take into consideration the
views of one such as I along with the views of everyone else who
expresses a view.

For any one decision, to adopt an I-D, to Last Call, to forward it to
the IETF and so on, there is someone allocated to call consensus, and in
most cases, it is the WG Chair.  So know who they are, and note what
they say!

Consensus is ill-defined, deliberately so.  It takes into consideration
views expressed on the mailing list and views not expressed.  If noone
responds to a call for adoption, the WG Chair will conclude that there
is no support and the I-D will be rejected just as if 10 people spoke
against adoption.  The I-D may be the latest, greatest social media app
but if 'us' are unwilling to work on it, then the IETF does not work on
it.

Consensus is not unanimity, nor is it majority.  I have known four in
favour, a dozen against, and consensus declared in favour; rightly so,
as the four were independent implementors of code.  It was going to
happen, better in a WG than without.

I know what I would call as consensus on gopher but that call is not
mine to make, or suggest.  The WG Chairs will do so when the time is
right (or when they are pushed to do so!).  They can justify their call
(and it can be appealed) but their logic is unlikely to be the same as
yours; it is likely to be along the lines of have enough people said on
this list that they will work on it.and progress it through to an RFC.
I-Ds that die the death along the way waste a lot of valuable resources
that, with hindsight, would have been better spent elsewhere.

Tom Petch

> Larry's right in being concerned about what I would call the
> signal-to-noise ratio of this mailing list.  The fact is that there is
the
> possibility and, in fact, the reality of irrelevant, insulting, and/or
> uninformed feedback.  Some people just can't be professional about it;
I'm
> not talking about Larry or myself, because I know we're decent people
who
> just can't seem to disagree civilly, but the fact is that there are
people
> with a consistent history of making unconstructive feedback either out
of
> ignorance or because it amuses them.
>
> And if I were him, I would raise another reservation; not a pure
objection,
> because I wouldn't object to my own project, but I would ask if the
author
> is able and willing to work within the IETF framework.  I would ask if
the
> author or authors are willing to listen to, and heed, technically
> reasonable input and to have drafts updated within a reasonable
turnaround
> time.  I would also think about whether the author responds in an
adult way
> to feedback, either positive or negative.
>
> I have no objection to Masinter's opinions, but rather his wording.
In
> fact, I agree with the questions he raises, but he should define his
words
> more carefully because what he writes might be mistaken for
> belligerence---this is why I replied to his comments in an equally
> belligerent tone, but with reasoned argument.
>
> Fraternal regards,
>
> Ed Matavka
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>

---

From: "Martin J. Dürst" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 20:20:39 +0900

Thanks Tom for saying most of what I was thinking about saying. Just one 
additional clarification below.

> but if 'us' are unwilling to work on it, then the IETF does not work on

The 'us' here means anybody who's willing to show up. There's NO barrier 
to entry except subscribing to a mailing list, and even that isn't 
necessary for the first expression of interest.

Regards,    Martin.

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 11:11:22 -0700

With no hat on, and speaking only for myself here:

On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 5:16 PM, Nick Matavka <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> I didn't mean to be ranty, Julian.  I meant to raise a point, that's all,
> *Who* decides what a "high-value project" is?  I think it's an important
> question.  If it's group "consensus", how is "consensus" defined?  Does
> consensus mean EVERYONE agrees (unanimous), or simply the prevailing wind
> of opinion?  Larry makes good points, I agree, but his tone of voice is
> infuriating sometimes.  What is the definition of a high-value project,
> anyway?  To whom should the project be highly valuable?  If the answer to
> this is, "the Internet-using public," who judges what is valuable to the
> public?
>

These are all interesting questions, and I daresay the IETF has an ongoing
inability to nail them down exactly.  I could argue that that's actually a
feature and not a bug, because precise rules on the topic could be gamed.

The basic answer is that the community decides, via discussion and
volunteerism, what work it wants to take on.  The results of the discussion
are gauged by people elected or appointed to management positions (Working
Group chairs, Area Directors, etc.), by gauging the rough consensus of the
discussion when a decision needs to be made.  That's how we select what
things will be taken on by new or existing working groups, and anything
that can't find a home by that process can then decide if it wants to go
the independent route.  What you saw after you posted your draft, and later
more official calls for discussion were made, was individual participants
weighing in on the question being asked.  None of them have specific
authority to say "yes" or "no", but rather were part of the community whose
rough consensus is to be measured when deciding what option to pursue.

Speaking only for myself though, I disagree with the "high-value" idea as
being an explicit barrier to entry.  Rather, if there's a subset of the
community that will commit to putting in the work, then we ought to do the
work, even if a few people might think that subset is clearly misguided
about what it thinks is important.  Some of their concerns are
well-founded: We are all volunteers here, so our time to do work is
precious, so do need to be careful what we agree to take on.  So, then, the
filter is us, not some written-down definition of "high-value": The
community, in theory representative of the Internet-using public, is
assumed to have some idea of what's important, critical, or interesting,
and we rely on that assumption and the assumption that they will want to
spend their time on those things.

> signal-to-noise ratio of this mailing list.  The fact is that there is the
> uninformed feedback.  Some people just can't be professional about it; I'm
> not talking about Larry or myself, because I know we're decent people who
> just can't seem to disagree civilly, but the fact is that there are people
> with a consistent history of making unconstructive feedback either out of

Yes, and people at all levels of the organization are concerned about this
sort of thing and have been for quite some time.

And if I were him, I would raise another reservation; not a pure objection,
> because I wouldn't object to my own project, but I would ask if the author
> is able and willing to work within the IETF framework.  I would ask if the
> reasonable input and to have drafts updated within a reasonable turnaround
> time.  I would also think about whether the author responds in an adult way

Yes again, to all of that.  And not only the author, but anyone else that
wants to do the work.  To use your proposal as a specific example, we
haven't seen anyone other than you from outside the IETF express interest
in supporting the progression of your draft.  To establish a critical mass,
that puts a burden on you to find a set of existing IETF participants that
are interested in helping you progress the document through a working group
or AD sponsorship all the way to publication, since you don't appear to
have brought any support of your own (other than yourself, of course).  But
either way, whoever will "sponsor" the work (an Area Director, or a Working
Group chair) does indeed have to ask those questions and be assured of the
answers.  We certainly don't want to accept a document for processing and
then have all the interested parties wander off to do something else before
it's done; that's an expensive mistake.

-MSK

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2015 17:12:00 +0200

On 2015-06-01 02:16, Nick Matavka wrote:
> all, and I still haven't received an answer.

Well, you were. And yes, that's subjective.

And maybe the reason why you did not get any reply to *that* mail is 
because of the tone it was written in. Just a theory.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Melvin Carvalho <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 17:43:59 +0200

On 1 June 2015 at 02:16, Nick Matavka <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> objection, because I wouldn't object to my own project, but I would ask if
> the author is able and willing to work within the IETF framework.  I would
> ask if the author or authors are willing to listen to, and heed,
> technically reasonable input and to have drafts updated within a reasonable
> turnaround time.  I would also think about whether the author responds in
> an adult way to feedback, either positive or negative.
>
> I have no objection to Masinter's opinions, but rather his wording.  In
> fact, I agree with the questions he raises, but he should define his words

I learnt a lot reading this document on consensus:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282

I also think it's important for any organization to take note of
constructive criticism on this topic.  It seems inevitable over time that
standards bodies become more dogmatic and orthodox.  It would be naive to
think the IETF is immune from this.  To paraphrase Joseph Campbell,
"Orthodoxy is the death of an institution, and heresy is its life blood".