Subject: [AAA-WG]: Re: Consensus Building and Meetings

From: David Mitton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 16:01:08 -0400

At 5/15/01 09:30 AM -0700, you wrote:
>thanks for the comments Ignacio.
>
>So far we have four people very vocal to changing the Grouped AVP to be more
>flexible, and one reason being that the protocol wouldn't be useable in 
>today's
>networks. There is one person against such a proposal.
>
>I believe that the chairs will have to evaluate whether or not we have
>consensus, and I am not sure that all of the interested parties can make 
>the meeting next week.

I would like to reinforce a point that was brought up privately...

The opinion of the parties that actually attend the Interim Meeting do NOT 
negate any opinions of people on the list.  The meeting is a venue to move 
the discussion along in real-time and captively gauge the opinions of those 
in the room.

Group Consensus will be judged by the combination of all inputs.

Of course, if we don't hear from you,... well you can figure it out.

Dave.
(at least we're not going to Florida... but that's probably a feature...)
----------------------------------------------------
David Mitton                            978-288-4570
Advisor, Nortel Networks
[email-masked]   or      [email-masked]

---

From: Pat Calhoun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 13:14:06 -0700

> Of course, if we don't hear from you,... well you can figure it out.

sigh.

The following applies only to the Grouped-AVP, because it is such a
controversial topic.

I do not believe that it is fair to allow people to raise their concerns
at next week's meeting, if these concerns were never brought up on the list.
I believe that people that cannot make the meeting should have a preview
of people's concerns, so they can respond to it.

I honestly do not believe that we will expedite the process by allowing
people to voice their concern at the meeting, waste time going back and
forth discussing this, and then have to take it back on the list anyways.
We will most certainly waste alot of our time.

my 2 cents,

PatC

---

From: John Schnizlein <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 17:58:19 -0400

Those of us who are not in the meeting have a reasonable expectation
that as many issues as possible will be addressed by the most strident
opinion holders during the face-to-face so that they can find common
ground, explain the errors in each other's thinking, and bring a resolution
back to the list. Consensus is measured on the list, but compromise often
requires that people get tired and expose an unstated (and erroneous) view
during the thick of the discussion. You just can't make a deal that the
rest of us think is distorted.

It does seem you will have fun. Good luck to you all.
John

---

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 15:38:05 -0700 (PDT)

> >We will most certainly waste alot of our time.

The IETF standards process requires that change control be ceded to an
IETF working group for a document to be considered for standards
status. That requires the establishment of an open process during which
working group concerns and opinions can be voiced and responded to by the
bulk of the working group. Part of the process of qualifying for standards
status is the demonstration that WG consensus is reflected on the
documents.

To date we have followed a relatively informal process in taking change
requests, establishing consensus, and reflecting changes within the
document. While this has enabled us to move more quickly, it also
creates the possibility of misunderstandings as to what we have
agreed to and what issues remain open. As the documents get closer to
completion, in order to make our milestones, we will need to tighten the
requirements on taking changes. 

I am currently working on investigating various methods for formally
tracking change requests, and documenting decisions so that we can exhibit
better collective memory on what issues are open, what the discussion has
been so far, what issues remain to be resolved and how far we are from
completion.  Given the large size of the documents we are dealing with and
the huge volume of suggestions and discussion, I believe that such methods
are going to be required to help keep us on track. Those of you that
participating in managing software development projects should
understand how valuable these tools can be. If you are interested
in discussing tools (open source, please!) available for the task, send
mail to me or Dave. 

Note that the goal here is not to shut down working group discussion, but
merely to allow the group to gain better collective awareness of where we
are and what decisions have been made. Since the time at the Interim
meeting is valuable, we will not be able to spend time discussing all
possible changes to the documents. Rather my hope is that we will clearly
identify all remaining issues, and will tackle those that are most
amenable to resolution within the time available. As a result,
participants should not be disappointed if the group chooses not to spend
time discussing one or more issues at the Interim meeting. We do however
promise to track all the issues that are raised and bring them to
resolution at some point.

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 23:06:08 -0400

> rest of us think is distorted.

bingo!  you buckin' for my job?  probably not, as you don't seem that
foolish. :-)

randy

---

From: Pat Calhoun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 20:48:22 -0700

Now really sorry I started all this mess :(

> status is the demonstration that WG consensus is reflected on the

Right, and my point was that alot of debate will occur next week over this
very topic. And I find that in all fairness, these issues should be
voiced ahead of time, just like the drafts, so people know what they are
up against.

I really don't think that I was asking for too much. This was in response
to Dave's e-mail stating that e-mail and meeting opinions will be
gathered, and a concensus will result. Perhaps I just mis-read his
e-mail.

> requirements on taking changes. 

right, and as a point of clarification, I have not added any new features,
but only fixed bugs in the protocol that were obvious, and no one objected
to the proposed change.

In the case where there wasn't complete consensus, or at least one person
disagreed, I didn't make the change. These open issues were sent by me
to the mailing list this morning so people can start looking at what
we need to work on next week.

> in discussing tools (open source, please!) available for the task, send

The current method that I have been using is this:

1. people email problem to list.
2. I respond, as do others.
3. I, or someone else, proposes new text.
4. We open discussion on the new text.
5. If no one disagrees, the text is adopted.

We could, of course, use a more formal approach, but the above has worked
fine so far, and can be tracked via the archives. Anyone can see the
archives, and no special software is needed (well, besides a browser).

Also, if people wish to have access to the nroff sources sccs files,
I can make those available.

Now, let's get back to work, and I appologize I opened this can or
worms.

PatC

---

From: Erik Guttman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 08:42:15 +0200 (MET DST)

> We will most certainly waste alot of our time.

Let's resolve the Group AVP issue.   My basic point is that if we
don't have basic types which are expressable by a formal grammar, we
lose the ability to automate and verify the protocol.  Others have
expressed that it would be unacceptable to give up flexibility.  

Unless there's additional support for my position, we can replace
the Group type with the Bag.  I will go along with rough group 
consensus, even if I'm the rough part.

Erik

---

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 01:34:56 -0700 (PDT)

> voiced ahead of time, just like the drafts, so people know what they are

This is actually not a bad idea. One way to accomplish this might be to
have people submit their comments in a manner that might be easily
organized and tracked. We could then compile the issues list and go
through it expeditiously at the Interim.

For some example tools that might enable this, see:
http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/tools/

Note: this would require sending out the comment form and getting
responses back to an email address by Sunday, as well as Internet access
at the Interim  meeting. I assume that interim attendees are sufficiently
motivated to commit to this ;)

> archives, and no special software is needed (well, besides a browser).

Agree that any methods used should be simple and available to everyone
(e.g. based on StarOffice formats, export to text/HTML, etc.). Take a
look at the example tools -- I think they meet this criteria. Just used
them in another setting to dispose of hundreds of comments in two days.

> I can make those available.
Don't think that would help, though thanks for the offer.