From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jan 4 00:57:11 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA25931 for ; Sun, 4 Jan 2004 00:57:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ad1Fk-0006IH-RV for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 04 Jan 2004 00:56:45 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i045uiJ9024190 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 4 Jan 2004 00:56:44 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ad1Fk-0006I5-KS for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 04 Jan 2004 00:56:44 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA25912 for ; Sun, 4 Jan 2004 00:56:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ad1Fh-0006tr-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 04 Jan 2004 00:56:41 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Ad1Do-0006qA-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 04 Jan 2004 00:54:45 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ad1C7-0006ms-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 04 Jan 2004 00:52:59 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ad1C8-0006EB-Bt; Sun, 04 Jan 2004 00:53:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ad1Bp-0006Co-AH for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 04 Jan 2004 00:52:41 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA25806 for ; Sun, 4 Jan 2004 00:52:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ad1Bm-0006kj-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Sun, 04 Jan 2004 00:52:38 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Ad1A0-0006ga-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Sun, 04 Jan 2004 00:50:49 -0500 Received: from measurement-factory.com ([206.168.0.5]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ad18H-0006cK-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Sun, 04 Jan 2004 00:49:01 -0500 Received: from measurement-factory.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i045n1k3071072; Sat, 3 Jan 2004 22:49:01 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Received: (from rousskov@localhost) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i045n1RZ071071; Sat, 3 Jan 2004 22:49:01 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rousskov) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 22:49:01 -0700 (MST) From: Alex Rousskov To: John C Klensin cc: MPowr Subject: Re: [mpowr] Mailing List Management In-Reply-To: <78624766.1072716332@scan.jck.com> Message-ID: References: <011901c3c654$24fdc830$5b6015ac@dclkempt40> <383969298.1071956717@localhost> <3FE86D59.8060201@txc.com> <2ca901c3c97b$347b1db0$5b6015ac@dclkempt40> <2ccf01c3c97d$b5993ec0$5b6015ac@dclkempt40> <2d7d01c3c987$cfa411f0$5b6015ac@dclkempt40> <902909174.1072475663@localhost> <78624766.1072716332@scan.jck.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 On Mon, 29 Dec 2003, John C Klensin wrote: > > The bottom line, it seems to me, is that we need to function, as > Dave Crocker has been pointing out (I hope I've correctly understood > him), as a collaborative community. No amount of rule-making is > going to cause either a sense of collaboration or a sense of > community to happen. Agreed. Similarly, good (simple, clear, flexible, etc) rules do not hurt and often help with collaboration we all want. Community collaboration can exist in an anarchy and in a dictatorship, but is more likely to exist and flourish somewhere in between those two extremes. > If we can't keep (or recover) that sense, then we need a rather > different set of rules and structures, to the point that debates > about mailing list participation is a waste of time. Within such a > community, it seems quite rational to me to tell WG Chairs that they > have lead responsibility for WG progress. While the above is indeed perfectly rational, it is not the only rational solution. That is what causes, in part, the debate in this thread. There is a whole spectrum of rational solutions (all within the collaborating community realm) with different proc and cons: - no banning whatsoever; use personal filters if needed - WG can ban - IESG can ban based on AD request based on Chair request - AD can ban based on Chair request - Chair can ban Even if we manage to agree on the last scheme, there is still a set of rational subrules: - N formal warnings are required (N >= 0) - minimum and maximum ban time is enforced (0 <= T <= oo) - repeated violators suffer more severe penalties or not - etc. > If something or someone is interfering with that progress > --including disruptions on mailing lists-- then they should be > encouraged to stop it and, if necessary, pushed out of the way. Agreed. The devil is in the details: exactly how interference is defined, detected, and stopped. Again, there are many rational solutions here. > ... the right way to deal with problems of these sorts _within a > community_ is to catch them earlier and push back (which, IMO, > should include involving the whole WG in a "shunning" process when > that seems useful), not to try to solve them by creating > ever-more-rigid and complex procedures. Still, there are enough flexible and simple alternatives people on this list seem to argue about. See above for a rough outline of the problem space. > Fewer formal procedures, more exercise of good sense, more > unambiguous negative reinforcement for failure to exercise good > sense.... The above is an ideal that works fairly well for small communities of similarly minded individuals. IMHO, the diversity, internal conflicts, and visibility of the current IETF, make that ideal impractical. "Good will" is not enough when "good" is essentially undefined and subgroups interpret "good" differently. You need a formal structure with well-defined and "transparent" interfaces to encourage, educate, and direct participants and their sponsors (if any) while resolving conflicts. The only working alternative to basic formalism is probably a totalitarian dictatorship with IESG as superpower, dispensing pieces of that power to individual ADs and Chairs. Simple, efficient, flexible. Many of us would probably not want to live in that kind of community though. Formalism and interfaces do not have to be complex or rigid. They need to give WGs as much control/freedom as possible while implementing cross-WG quality checks and Oracle appeal process. The devil is, of course, in the details. Alex. _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 9 08:21:47 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA28048 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 08:21:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AewZi-0004pn-FY for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 08:21:18 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i09DLIRa018579 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 08:21:18 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AewZi-0004pa-AQ for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 08:21:18 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA27876 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 08:21:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AewZh-0006Ia-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 08:21:17 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AewRx-0005uc-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 08:13:18 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AewMD-0005ad-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 08:07:21 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AewLs-00043o-MM; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 08:07:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AewLC-00042w-2W for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 08:06:18 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA27505 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 08:06:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AewL6-0005Xr-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 08:06:12 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AewHR-0005KL-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 08:02:27 -0500 Received: from smtp.exodus.net ([66.35.230.236]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AewB0-00053a-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 07:55:46 -0500 Received: from ms101.mail1.com (ms101.mail1.com [209.1.5.174]) by smtp.exodus.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i09EYhw4030385 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 06:34:43 -0800 Received: from ala-mrwtemp.thingmagic.com (unverified [24.61.30.237]) by accounting.espmail.com (Rockliffe SMTPRA 5.2.5) with ESMTP id for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 04:54:49 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040109064121.0427f9f8@ms101.mail1.com> X-Sender: margaret@thingmagic.com@ms101.mail1.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 07:52:59 -0500 To: mpowr@ietf.org From: Margaret Wasserman Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [mpowr] SUMMARY: Mailing List Management Discussion Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 One of the subjects that we discussed in some depth on this list is how/if a WG chair should be able to revoke the posting privileges of disruptive mailing list participants. This discussion started with a concrete proposal from James Kempf, in which he suggested that we establish a mailing list "Code of Conduct" and formalize a process for how WG chairs could revoke the posting privileges of individuals who violate that code. (Thanks, James!) One person voiced strong support for the proposal as written (Alex Rousskov). Alex Rousskov later argued against the proposal as unnecessary. Several people voiced support for the idea of allowing WG chairs to revoke the posting privileges of disruptive individuals, but had issues with James proposal and/or did not comment on it specifically (Margaret Wasserman, John Klensin, Spencer Dawkins, Harald Alvestrand, Melinda Shore, Dave Crocker). One person made unambiguous statements against the idea that WG chairs should be allowed to revoke the posting privileges of disruptive individuals (Alex Conta). There were several specific objections to James' proposal: - Concerns that James' proposal was more complex than necessary (Margaret Wasserman, James Kempf, John Klensin). No one disagreed. - Concerns that allowing anyone to revoke posting privileges is a violation of the right to free speech (Alex Conta). Margaret Wasserman, Harald Alvestrand and John Klensin disagreed that this is a free speech issue. Others continued to speak in favor of some type of policy in this area, despite this objection. - A concern that allowing WG chairs to revoke posting privileges would raise our liability (Raised by James Kempf, quoting Scott Bradner). Margaret Wasserman disagreed. - A concern that chairs might abuse this authority to quash dissenting opinion (Alex Conta, Alex Rousskov). Several others indicated that a requirement for AD approval and/or the appeals process would handle this situation (Margaret Wasserman, James Kempf, John Klensin, Harald Alvestrand, Dave Crocker). - Assertions that it is unnecessary to revoke the posting privileges of disruptive participants because list members could use mail filters instead (Alex Conta, Alex Rousskov). Several people pointed out that filtering is ineffective or would cause a larger problem (Margaret Wasserman, Melinda Shore, Spencer Dawkins, James Kempf). So, based on this discussion, I will assert the following: (1) There is rough consensus among the people active on this list that WG chairs should be allowed to revoke the posting privileges of disruptive participants with AD approval and the possibility of appeal. (2) There is rough consensus among the people active on this list that the details of James' proposal are too process-heavy, and that we need a lighter-weight proposal. However, this discussion has only involved eight of the approximately fifty people subscribed to this list. Do others have opinions on this topic? Margaret Wasserman and John Klensin also discussed the possibility that the IESG could conduct an experiment by temporarily granting this authority to WG chairs (for three to six months) to see what happens. Would anyone object if we made a proposal to the IESG to try such an experiment? Does anyone want to write up a specific proposal along those lines? James, do you want to try again? Margaret _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 9 09:10:53 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA28050 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 08:21:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AewZi-0004q7-LE for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 08:21:18 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i09DLIPF018597 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 08:21:18 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AewZi-0004po-G1 for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 08:21:18 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA27878 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 08:21:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AewZh-0006Ig-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 08:21:17 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AewRy-0005uk-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 08:13:18 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AewMD-0005ae-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 08:07:21 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AewLt-00043y-01; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 08:07:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AewKu-00042N-Ji for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 08:06:00 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA27501 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 08:05:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AewKl-0005XV-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 08:05:51 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AewHQ-0005K5-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 08:02:25 -0500 Received: from smtp.exodus.net ([66.35.230.236]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AewB0-00053Z-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 07:55:46 -0500 Received: from ms101.mail1.com (ms101.mail1.com [209.1.5.174]) by smtp.exodus.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i09EYhw3030385 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 06:34:43 -0800 Received: from ala-mrwtemp.thingmagic.com (unverified [24.61.30.237]) by accounting.espmail.com (Rockliffe SMTPRA 5.2.5) with ESMTP id for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 04:54:48 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040109062040.044e3c28@ms101.mail1.com> X-Sender: margaret@thingmagic.com@ms101.mail1.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 07:52:54 -0500 To: mpowr@ietf.org From: Margaret Wasserman Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [mpowr] Happy New Year! Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Hi All, Happy New Year! One of my resolutions for 2004 is to figure out how to get this effort on-track. Any ideas? In an attemp to get things moving, I will send summary message for each of our major discussions to-date. The messages will summarize our discussion, indicate where I see consensus (if any) and make some recommendations for next steps in each area. We're also still working on a proposed charter for an MPOWR WG -- tuning it as we go, based on feedback on this list and on solutions@alvestrand.no. We will send it to this list as soon as we have something concrete to suggest. In the meantime, it would be great if we could continue discussion of whether or not we need a WG in this area and, if so, what the WG should do. Thanks! Margaret _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 9 10:04:46 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA02815 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 10:04:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AeyBO-0001QR-3I for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 10:04:18 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i09F4IrJ005478 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 10:04:18 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AeyBN-0001QH-Pz for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 10:04:17 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA02758 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 10:04:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AeyBG-0006A6-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 10:04:10 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aey6X-0005yy-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 09:59:19 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aey1e-0005nv-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 09:54:14 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aey1Q-00019v-UM; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 09:54:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aey0R-00015q-Ve for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 09:53:00 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA02471 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 09:52:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aey0Q-0005l4-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 09:52:58 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aexye-0005gs-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 09:51:08 -0500 Received: from netcore.fi ([193.94.160.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AexyG-0005cS-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 09:50:44 -0500 Received: from localhost (pekkas@localhost) by netcore.fi (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i09EoAu30585; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:50:10 +0200 Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:50:10 +0200 (EET) From: Pekka Savola To: Margaret Wasserman cc: mpowr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [mpowr] SUMMARY: Mailing List Management Discussion In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20040109064121.0427f9f8@ms101.mail1.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Margaret Wasserman wrote: > However, this discussion has only involved eight of the > approximately fifty people subscribed to this list. Do > others have opinions on this topic? Yes, WG chairs should be able to do this, with AD approval if deemed necessary. (A trivial part of that already exists for WG chairs who unsubscribe the WG members whose emails start bouncing when their accounts are deleted etc. -- it may be worth considering whether this requires the same process or not as well) Yes, I think James's proposal is unnecessarily heavy-weight, but if there was consensus for it, I wouldn't object. The result is more important than the means. One other possibility is to provide a pointer, in the subscribe message, to an IETF web page describing the mailing list code of conduct, and spam the code of conduct to all the existing subscribers at some point. If Note Well is deemed to be binding this way, I fail to see why a Code of Conduct would require a heavier process.. > Would anyone object if we made a proposal to the IESG to > try such an experiment? Does anyone want to write up a > specific proposal along those lines? James, do you want > to try again? I think doing such an experiment would be a great idea, and I strongly favor it. Anything which helps us go forward is a good thing :-) -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 9 10:39:29 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA06648 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 10:39:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aeyiz-0003aw-VS for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 10:39:02 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i09Fd1Do013806 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 10:39:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aeyiz-0003a9-8w for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 10:39:01 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA06576 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 10:38:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aeyiw-0000nT-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 10:38:58 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aeyhc-0000dv-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 10:37:37 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aeyg4-0000PR-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 10:36:00 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aeyg5-00032F-W8; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 10:36:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AeyfT-0002zY-5H for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 10:35:23 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA05616 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 10:35:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AeyfQ-0000Jn-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 10:35:20 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AeydW-00005l-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 10:33:23 -0500 Received: from ns.execdsl.net ([208.184.15.238] helo=EXECDSL.COM) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AeycQ-0007e4-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 10:32:14 -0500 Received: from [64.254.114.114] (HELO JLaptop.stevecrocker.com) by EXECDSL.COM (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.3) with ESMTP id 6060616 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 10:32:09 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20040109102922.0194c078@localhost> X-Sender: joel@stevecrocker.com@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 10:31:58 -0500 To: mpowr@ietf.org From: "Joel M. Halpern" Subject: Re: [mpowr] SUMMARY: Mailing List Management Discussion In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20040109064121.0427f9f8@ms101.mail1.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 It seems to me that with reasonable clarity (not binding rules, just clear descriptions of the goals) the WG chairs should be able to temporarily revoke WG posting privileges. Requiring AD notification / concurrence / review seems reasonable. The current procedures requiring full IESG approval is probably more limitation than we need. Yours, Joel M. Halpern At 07:52 AM 1/9/2004 -0500, Margaret Wasserman wrote: >One of the subjects that we discussed in some depth on this >list is how/if a WG chair should be able to revoke the posting >privileges of disruptive mailing list participants. > >This discussion started with a concrete proposal from James >Kempf, in which he suggested that we establish a mailing list >"Code of Conduct" and formalize a process for how WG chairs >could revoke the posting privileges of individuals who violate >that code. (Thanks, James!) > >One person voiced strong support for the proposal as written >(Alex Rousskov). Alex Rousskov later argued against the >proposal as unnecessary. > >Several people voiced support for the idea of allowing WG >chairs to revoke the posting privileges of disruptive >individuals, but had issues with James proposal and/or >did not comment on it specifically (Margaret Wasserman, >John Klensin, Spencer Dawkins, Harald Alvestrand, >Melinda Shore, Dave Crocker). > >One person made unambiguous statements against the idea >that WG chairs should be allowed to revoke the posting >privileges of disruptive individuals (Alex Conta). > >There were several specific objections to James' proposal: > > - Concerns that James' proposal was more complex > than necessary (Margaret Wasserman, James Kempf, > John Klensin). No one disagreed. > > - Concerns that allowing anyone to revoke posting > privileges is a violation of the right to free > speech (Alex Conta). Margaret Wasserman, Harald > Alvestrand and John Klensin disagreed that this > is a free speech issue. Others continued to speak > in favor of some type of policy in this area, > despite this objection. > > - A concern that allowing WG chairs to revoke > posting privileges would raise our liability > (Raised by James Kempf, quoting Scott Bradner). > Margaret Wasserman disagreed. > > - A concern that chairs might abuse this authority > to quash dissenting opinion (Alex Conta, Alex > Rousskov). Several others indicated that a > requirement for AD approval and/or the > appeals process would handle this situation > (Margaret Wasserman, James Kempf, John Klensin, > Harald Alvestrand, Dave Crocker). > > - Assertions that it is unnecessary to revoke the > posting privileges of disruptive participants > because list members could use mail filters > instead (Alex Conta, Alex Rousskov). Several > people pointed out that filtering is ineffective > or would cause a larger problem (Margaret > Wasserman, Melinda Shore, Spencer Dawkins, > James Kempf). > >So, based on this discussion, I will assert the following: > >(1) There is rough consensus among the people active on this >list that WG chairs should be allowed to revoke the posting >privileges of disruptive participants with AD approval and >the possibility of appeal. > >(2) There is rough consensus among the people active on this >list that the details of James' proposal are too process-heavy, >and that we need a lighter-weight proposal. > >However, this discussion has only involved eight of the >approximately fifty people subscribed to this list. Do >others have opinions on this topic? > >Margaret Wasserman and John Klensin also discussed the >possibility that the IESG could conduct an experiment by >temporarily granting this authority to WG chairs (for >three to six months) to see what happens. > >Would anyone object if we made a proposal to the IESG to >try such an experiment? Does anyone want to write up a >specific proposal along those lines? James, do you want >to try again? > >Margaret > > > > >_______________________________________________ >mpowr mailing list >mpowr@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 9 10:42:57 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA07203 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 10:42:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AeymL-0003ht-Q8 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 10:42:30 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i09FgTon014243 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 10:42:29 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AeymL-0003hd-Gb for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 10:42:29 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA07128 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 10:42:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AeymJ-000107-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 10:42:27 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AeykX-0000uO-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 10:40:38 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aeyix-0000ni-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 10:38:59 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aeyiy-0003Zn-ST; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 10:39:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AeyiR-0003Ws-Gz for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 10:38:27 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA06426 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 10:38:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AeyiP-0000hy-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 10:38:25 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aeygc-0000U8-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 10:36:35 -0500 Received: from eagle.ericsson.se ([193.180.251.53]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aeyen-0000CC-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 10:34:41 -0500 Received: from esealnt612.al.sw.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.118]) by eagle.ericsson.se (8.12.10/8.12.10/WIREfire-1.8b) with ESMTP id i09FYZAh030760 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:34:35 +0100 Received: from lm9014.lmera.ericsson.se ([150.132.89.14]) by esealnt612.al.sw.ericsson.se with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2657.72) id ZJAH7CR7; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:34:34 +0100 From: "David Partain (LI/EAB)" Reply-To: David.Partain@ericsson.com Organization: Ericsson - http://www.ericsson.com To: mpowr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [mpowr] SUMMARY: Mailing List Management Discussion Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:34:33 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.4 References: <5.1.0.14.2.20040109064121.0427f9f8@ms101.mail1.com> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20040109064121.0427f9f8@ms101.mail1.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200401091634.33240.david.partain@ericsson.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Greetings, On Friday 09 January 2004 13.52, Margaret Wasserman wrote: > One of the subjects that we discussed in some depth on this > list is how/if a WG chair should be able to revoke the posting > privileges of disruptive mailing list participants. [summary deleted] First, a question. Is this problem _really_ that big? I've followed many working group mailing lists (primarily in the O&M area) for years and can remember only a single example of a person that I felt legimately could have been tossed off. I must admit that I have a hard time getting particularly worked up about this one way or another. However, rather than being one of the silent lurkers, I fall into the "boot 'em off!" camp. I personally believe strongly that the overwhelmingly large percentage of people simply Behave Properly, but it's entirely reasonable to have a way to deal with those who don't. If we want to codify what "properly" means, okay (not that it'll be easy). My preference, though, would be that, rather than trying to create the IETF's Miss Manners, we simply rely on checks & balances and people doing the Right Thing. Something along the lines of - Bad Person begins to trash the mailing list - Chair(s) kindly requests that Bad Person behave - Bad Person persists to trash progress to the point where the Chair(s) determine it's hopeless - Chair(s) contact relevant ADs. If both agree that Bad Person is misbehaving, s/he's Outta There. We can be benign dictators and quarantine them for increasingly long periods of time. I don't think it's too much to ask that people behave themselves within the context of the IETF. Having 3 or 4 people (depending on whether there are 2 co-chairs) determining what "behaving" is seems entirely sufficient to me. > (1) There is rough consensus among the people active on this > list that WG chairs should be allowed to revoke the posting > privileges of disruptive participants with AD approval and > the possibility of appeal. Cool. > (2) There is rough consensus among the people active on this > list that the details of James' proposal are too process-heavy, > and that we need a lighter-weight proposal. Does the above qualify as a proposal? Cheers, David _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 9 11:36:59 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA12282 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 11:36:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aezcd-0005pY-Jt for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 11:36:31 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i09GaV7n022411 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 11:36:31 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aezcd-0005pO-Fd for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 11:36:31 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA12108 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 11:36:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aezcc-0004lZ-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 11:36:30 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aezac-0004Pb-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 11:34:27 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AezYD-0004Bj-03 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 11:31:57 -0500 Received: from optimus22.ietf.org ([132.151.6.22] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AezQf-0004fj-Lw for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 11:24:10 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AezQY-0005H1-Sv; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 11:24:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AezQV-0005FQ-Au for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 11:23:59 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA10999 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 11:23:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AezQU-0003KG-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 11:23:58 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AezLU-0002uV-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 11:18:49 -0500 Received: from m106.maoz.com ([205.167.76.9]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AezFd-0002T5-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 11:12:46 -0500 Received: from m106.maoz.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by m106.maoz.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i09GC06f010194; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 08:12:00 -0800 Received: (from dmm@localhost) by m106.maoz.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i09GC0gO010193; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 08:12:00 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: m106.maoz.com: dmm set sender to dmm@1-4-5.net using -f Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 08:12:00 -0800 From: David Meyer To: Margaret Wasserman Cc: mpowr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [mpowr] SUMMARY: Mailing List Management Discussion Message-ID: <20040109161200.GA10072@1-4-5.net> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20040109064121.0427f9f8@ms101.mail1.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20040109064121.0427f9f8@ms101.mail1.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-public-key: http://www.1-4-5.net/~dmm/public-key.asc X-philosophy: "I just had to let it go" -- John Lennon Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 07:52:59AM -0500, Margaret Wasserman wrote: >> >> One of the subjects that we discussed in some depth on this >> list is how/if a WG chair should be able to revoke the posting >> privileges of disruptive mailing list participants. >> >> This discussion started with a concrete proposal from James >> Kempf, in which he suggested that we establish a mailing list >> "Code of Conduct" and formalize a process for how WG chairs >> could revoke the posting privileges of individuals who violate >> that code. (Thanks, James!) >> >> One person voiced strong support for the proposal as written >> (Alex Rousskov). Alex Rousskov later argued against the >> proposal as unnecessary. >> >> Several people voiced support for the idea of allowing WG >> chairs to revoke the posting privileges of disruptive >> individuals, but had issues with James proposal and/or >> did not comment on it specifically (Margaret Wasserman, >> John Klensin, Spencer Dawkins, Harald Alvestrand, >> Melinda Shore, Dave Crocker). >> >> One person made unambiguous statements against the idea >> that WG chairs should be allowed to revoke the posting >> privileges of disruptive individuals (Alex Conta). >> >> There were several specific objections to James' proposal: >> >> - Concerns that James' proposal was more complex >> than necessary (Margaret Wasserman, James Kempf, >> John Klensin). No one disagreed. >> >> - Concerns that allowing anyone to revoke posting >> privileges is a violation of the right to free >> speech (Alex Conta). Margaret Wasserman, Harald >> Alvestrand and John Klensin disagreed that this >> is a free speech issue. Others continued to speak >> in favor of some type of policy in this area, >> despite this objection. >> >> - A concern that allowing WG chairs to revoke >> posting privileges would raise our liability >> (Raised by James Kempf, quoting Scott Bradner). >> Margaret Wasserman disagreed. >> >> - A concern that chairs might abuse this authority >> to quash dissenting opinion (Alex Conta, Alex >> Rousskov). Several others indicated that a >> requirement for AD approval and/or the >> appeals process would handle this situation >> (Margaret Wasserman, James Kempf, John Klensin, >> Harald Alvestrand, Dave Crocker). >> >> - Assertions that it is unnecessary to revoke the >> posting privileges of disruptive participants >> because list members could use mail filters >> instead (Alex Conta, Alex Rousskov). Several >> people pointed out that filtering is ineffective >> or would cause a larger problem (Margaret >> Wasserman, Melinda Shore, Spencer Dawkins, >> James Kempf). >> >> So, based on this discussion, I will assert the following: >> >> (1) There is rough consensus among the people active on this >> list that WG chairs should be allowed to revoke the posting >> privileges of disruptive participants with AD approval and >> the possibility of appeal. Agree. >> (2) There is rough consensus among the people active on this >> list that the details of James' proposal are too process-heavy, >> and that we need a lighter-weight proposal. Agree. >> However, this discussion has only involved eight of the >> approximately fifty people subscribed to this list. Do >> others have opinions on this topic? See above :-) >> Margaret Wasserman and John Klensin also discussed the >> possibility that the IESG could conduct an experiment by >> temporarily granting this authority to WG chairs (for >> three to six months) to see what happens. >> >> Would anyone object if we made a proposal to the IESG to >> try such an experiment? Does anyone want to write up a >> specific proposal along those lines? James, do you want >> to try again? I don't have a specific proposal at this time, but what I would like to see in any such proposal are: (i). For the experiment itself: (a). Well-defined (and clearly documented) guidelines describing the conditions and situations under which such privileges may be revoked (b). A well-defined appeals process (c). A well-defined reinstatement policy (ii). For executing the experiment (a). A well-defined and documented experimental design, including (b). One or more controls (i.e., we need something to compare to; it's going to be really hard to have the "control-WG" that doesn't have the experimental policy in place, so we need to think that one out a little) (c). A well defined "experiment sunset" timer (d). Well defined evaluation criteria and metrics (of course, without this, we really don't have an "experiment" in any sense of the word I understand) Thanks, Dave _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 9 11:42:15 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA12668 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 11:42:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aezhi-0006M4-S9 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 11:41:46 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i09GfkdS024422 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 11:41:46 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aezhi-0006Lp-Nd for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 11:41:46 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA12589 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 11:41:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aezhh-0005ER-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 11:41:45 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aezfo-00056N-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 11:39:49 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aeze5-0004yK-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 11:38:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aeze5-0006BA-UE; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 11:38:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aezdw-00069M-My for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 11:37:52 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA12393 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 11:37:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aezdv-0004we-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 11:37:51 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aezbz-0004eJ-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 11:35:53 -0500 Received: from f070.brocade.com ([66.243.153.70] helo=blasphemy.brocade.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AezZG-0004GU-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 11:33:02 -0500 Received: from hq-ex-3.corp.brocade.com (hq-ex-3 [192.168.38.35]) by blasphemy.brocade.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B33514162; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 08:32:24 -0800 (PST) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [mpowr] Happy New Year! Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 08:32:24 -0800 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [mpowr] Happy New Year! Thread-Index: AcPWsYM8X4yWmqFqS82H3yGRXDARUAAG8y2Q From: "Robert Snively" To: "Margaret Wasserman" , Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > Happy New Year! One of my resolutions for 2004 is to figure out > how to get this effort on-track. Any ideas? >=20 > In an attemp to get things moving, I will send summary message > for each of our major discussions to-date. The messages will > summarize our discussion, indicate where I see consensus (if > any) and make some recommendations for next steps in each area. Excellent ideas Margaret. As the facilitator/chair/leader, you should take charge of setting the agenda, accepting refinements to the agenda, and guiding forward progress through the agenda, just as if this were a face-to-face meeting. These summary messages (they don't have to be every day, but should probably be at least once a week) would essentially become cumulative indicators of our progress through the agenda and would be very helpful in keeping the discussions on track and the threads coherent. Otherwise, the discussions tend to fork too frequently, leaving us awash in good ideas not necessarily focused on the tasks defined in the agenda. Bob _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 9 12:32:29 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA15660 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 12:32:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af0UM-0000pV-2z for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 12:32:02 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i09HW2XP003188 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 12:32:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af0UL-0000pF-SL for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 12:32:01 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA15504 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 12:31:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af0UK-0001ci-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 12:32:00 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af0QY-0000sp-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 12:28:07 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af0Ot-0000lz-01 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 12:26:23 -0500 Received: from optimus22.ietf.org ([132.151.6.22] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1Af0No-0005nz-6K for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 12:25:16 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af0Nd-00007T-5V; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 12:25:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af0NH-0008Uk-El for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 12:24:43 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA14949 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 12:24:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af0NF-0000ak-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 12:24:41 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af0LH-0000FA-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 12:22:41 -0500 Received: from f070.brocade.com ([66.243.153.70] helo=blasphemy.brocade.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af09d-0007Gi-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 12:10:37 -0500 Received: from hq-ex-3.corp.brocade.com (hq-ex-3 [192.168.38.35]) by blasphemy.brocade.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA16614327; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 09:09:44 -0800 (PST) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [mpowr] SUMMARY: Mailing List Management Discussion Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 09:09:44 -0800 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [mpowr] SUMMARY: Mailing List Management Discussion Thread-Index: AcPWsYO4lmFvzZ7ZSPeIHE2ufz8WxwAHLUDQ From: "Robert Snively" To: "Margaret Wasserman" , Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >=20 > However, this discussion has only involved eight of the > approximately fifty people subscribed to this list. Do > others have opinions on this topic? >=20 I like to think of these discussions as extended meetings. If we have an agreed-upon charter, scope, and agenda for a mailing list, disruption can be classified according to the relevance of the posting to that charter, scope, and agenda. If we do not have such an agreement, the suppression of disruption may shift over to censorship without anyone even noticing. Clearly spam is disruptive and out of order in any mailing list, but constructive ideas relevant to the charter, scope, and agenda, even if wildly unpopular, should not be out of order. So of course the WG should be able to remove spammers from its roles. But a "well-run meeting" (i.e. a mailing list with an agreed-upon charter, scope, and agenda) should easily be able to distinguish out-of-order statements from in-order statements and label them as such without having to remove anyone from the roles. That makes me mostly in disagreement with consensus item 1) > (1) There is rough consensus among the people active on this > list that WG chairs should be allowed to revoke the posting > privileges of disruptive participants with AD approval and > the possibility of appeal. because the category of "disruptive" cannot be defined without more context. "We know it when we see it," is not an appropriate definition of disruption. _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 9 12:36:13 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA16754 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 12:36:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af0Xx-0001TE-WE for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 12:35:46 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i09HZjVC005646 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 12:35:45 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af0Xx-0001Sz-S4 for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 12:35:45 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA16412 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 12:35:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af0Xw-0002PO-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 12:35:44 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af0UE-0001bE-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 12:31:55 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af0QR-0000rT-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 12:27:59 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af0QS-0000dY-8N; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 12:28:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af0QK-0000d6-MY for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 12:27:52 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA15297 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 12:27:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af0QJ-0000py-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 12:27:51 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af0Og-0000kM-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 12:26:11 -0500 Received: from key1.docomolabs-usa.com ([216.98.102.225] helo=fridge.docomolabs-usa.com ident=fwuser) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af0NS-0000cq-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 12:24:54 -0500 Message-ID: <00b201c3d6d5$8ed72b70$606015ac@dclkempt40> From: "James Kempf" To: "Pekka Savola" , "Margaret Wasserman" Cc: References: Subject: Re: [mpowr] SUMMARY: Mailing List Management Discussion Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 09:25:19 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Yes, I think James's proposal is unnecessarily heavy-weight, but if > there was consensus for it, I wouldn't object. The result is more > important than the means. > Even though I made the proposal, I agree. > One other possibility is to provide a pointer, in the subscribe > message, to an IETF web page describing the mailing list code of > conduct, and spam the code of conduct to all the existing subscribers > at some point. If Note Well is deemed to be binding this way, I fail > to see why a Code of Conduct would require a heavier process.. > I think it would make sense to have a Code of Conduct, and make people aware of it as is done with the Note Well. > > Would anyone object if we made a proposal to the IESG to > > try such an experiment? Does anyone want to write up a > > specific proposal along those lines? James, do you want > > to try again? > > I think doing such an experiment would be a great idea, and I strongly > favor it. Anything which helps us go forward is a good thing :-) > I'm not exactly sure what you mean by an experiment. Do you mean: 1) Write up the Code of Conduct, 2) Set up a mailing list for an existing or proposed WG that requires a click thorough on the Code of Conduct to join, 3) Get IESG approval for the WG chairs to be able to remove anyone who doesn't abide by the Code of Conduct according to some set of rules that involve notifications of the distruptor which is what I proposed, or do you mean: 1) Write up the Code of Conduct, 2) Spam it to existing list particpants or make sure that it gets in the infopack distributed by the Secretariat like the Note Well at face to face meetings or something else to make sure that people are aware of it, 3) Get IESG approval for the WG chairs to remove someone without any specific rules but requiring AD approval which is a simplified version that is more in line with what Margaret proposed originally, or something else? jak _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 9 12:58:11 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA18586 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 12:58:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af0tD-00084X-QE for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 12:57:43 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i09Hvh9e031016 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 12:57:43 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af0tD-000842-IF for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 12:57:43 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA18536 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 12:57:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af0t6-0005L4-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 12:57:36 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af0ji-0003hz-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 12:47:56 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af0ft-0003BR-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 12:43:57 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af0ZB-0001Wm-RJ; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 12:37:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af0Z3-0001Ve-Nl for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 12:36:53 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA16926 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 12:36:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af0Z2-0002eY-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 12:36:52 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af0Vm-0001vQ-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 12:33:31 -0500 Received: from key1.docomolabs-usa.com ([216.98.102.225] helo=fridge.docomolabs-usa.com ident=fwuser) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af0Rm-00016f-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 12:29:22 -0500 Message-ID: <00c701c3d6d6$2a2c2f30$606015ac@dclkempt40> From: "James Kempf" To: , References: <5.1.0.14.2.20040109064121.0427f9f8@ms101.mail1.com> <200401091634.33240.david.partain@ericsson.com> Subject: Re: [mpowr] SUMMARY: Mailing List Management Discussion Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 09:29:38 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit David, I'm not sure how often the problem occurs, but when it does, it can effectively destroy the ability of a WG to do any technical work. Most of the good technical people fold up their tents and migrate elsewhere when a distruptor appears on a mailing list. It results in lasting damage to the WG that can make it almost impossible to get any really good technical work out of it. At least, that has been my experience ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Partain (LI/EAB)" To: Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 7:34 AM Subject: Re: [mpowr] SUMMARY: Mailing List Management Discussion > Greetings, > > On Friday 09 January 2004 13.52, Margaret Wasserman wrote: > > One of the subjects that we discussed in some depth on this > > list is how/if a WG chair should be able to revoke the posting > > privileges of disruptive mailing list participants. > > [summary deleted] > > First, a question. Is this problem _really_ that big? > I've followed many working group mailing lists (primarily in > the O&M area) for years and can remember only a single example > of a person that I felt legimately could have been tossed off. > > I must admit that I have a hard time getting particularly worked > up about this one way or another. However, rather than being > one of the silent lurkers, I fall into the "boot 'em off!" camp. > I personally believe strongly that the overwhelmingly large > percentage of people simply Behave Properly, but it's entirely > reasonable to have a way to deal with those who don't. If we > want to codify what "properly" means, okay (not that it'll > be easy). > > My preference, though, would be that, rather than trying to > create the IETF's Miss Manners, we simply rely on checks & > balances and people doing the Right Thing. Something along the > lines of > > - Bad Person begins to trash the mailing list > - Chair(s) kindly requests that Bad Person behave > - Bad Person persists to trash progress to the point where the > Chair(s) determine it's hopeless > - Chair(s) contact relevant ADs. If both agree that Bad Person > is misbehaving, s/he's Outta There. > > We can be benign dictators and quarantine them for increasingly > long periods of time. > > I don't think it's too much to ask that people behave themselves > within the context of the IETF. Having 3 or 4 people (depending > on whether there are 2 co-chairs) determining what "behaving" is > seems entirely sufficient to me. > > > (1) There is rough consensus among the people active on this > > list that WG chairs should be allowed to revoke the posting > > privileges of disruptive participants with AD approval and > > the possibility of appeal. > > Cool. > > > (2) There is rough consensus among the people active on this > > list that the details of James' proposal are too process-heavy, > > and that we need a lighter-weight proposal. > > Does the above qualify as a proposal? > > Cheers, > > David > > > > _______________________________________________ > mpowr mailing list > mpowr@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr > _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 9 14:26:34 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA27929 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 14:26:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af2Gg-0002az-Ex for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 14:26:03 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i09JQ2n2009977 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 14:26:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af2Gg-0002aq-3E for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 14:26:02 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA27664 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 14:25:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af2GY-0002fe-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 14:25:54 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af1Tu-0002z9-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 13:35:43 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af1FN-0007Lh-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 13:20:37 -0500 Received: from optimus22.ietf.org ([132.151.6.22] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1Af0yg-0007aW-3W for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 13:03:22 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af0yK-0005O7-PR; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 13:03:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af0xu-0004sT-Rt for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 13:02:34 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA19082 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 13:02:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af0xo-0005tM-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 13:02:28 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af0l2-0003yX-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 12:49:17 -0500 Received: from measurement-factory.com ([206.168.0.5]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af0gH-0003EL-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 12:44:21 -0500 Received: from measurement-factory.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i09HiLk3065713; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 10:44:21 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Received: (from rousskov@localhost) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i09HiLVG065712; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 10:44:21 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rousskov) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 10:44:21 -0700 (MST) From: Alex Rousskov To: Margaret Wasserman cc: mpowr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [mpowr] SUMMARY: Mailing List Management Discussion In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20040109064121.0427f9f8@ms101.mail1.com> Message-ID: References: <5.1.0.14.2.20040109064121.0427f9f8@ms101.mail1.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Margaret Wasserman wrote: > One person voiced strong support for the proposal as written (Alex > Rousskov). Alex Rousskov later argued against the proposal as > unnecessary. Looks like my multiple personality disorder is coming back together with amnesia! I do not recall doing any of the two mutually exclusive things above. Maybe there are more than two personalities; that would explain the amnesia part. :-) > (1) There is rough consensus among the people active on this list > that WG chairs should be allowed to revoke the posting privileges of > disruptive participants with AD approval and the possibility of > appeal. > > (2) There is rough consensus among the people active on this list > that the details of James' proposal are too process-heavy, and that > we need a lighter-weight proposal. I agree on both counts. However, I note that different people will interpret a "lighter-weight proposal" differently. Some believe we just need to document that Chairs can do whatever they want (as long as the AD approves). Some believe that a very simple but documented "warning" procedure must be followed. I belong to the second camp. > Margaret Wasserman and John Klensin also discussed the possibility > that the IESG could conduct an experiment by temporarily granting > this authority to WG chairs (for three to six months) to see what > happens. While I like testing, in this simple case covering a very rare condition, any dedicated testing would be a waste of time. We are not likely to get enough sample points to claim any statistical significance. We will waste time arguing about performance criteria and other experiment setup issues (there are already messages being posted about that). Let's document a simple set of rules and IESG can enable it immediately after the usual review stages. If enabling these rules causes serious problems, IESG can always suspend them immediately by instructing ADs to stop approving suspension requests. > Would anyone object if we made a proposal to the IESG to > try such an experiment? I would, for two reasons: - we need to document rules before we can experiment - we cannot stage a useful experiment for these rules > Does anyone want to write up a specific proposal along those lines? > James, do you want to try again? Here is an existing proposal we should not ignore, BTW: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mrose-ietf-posting-04.txt Marshall suggests a relatively heavy procedure but with a long-term (1 year) suspension. FWIW, here are the simple rules skeleton I have in mind: - A Chair that wants to terminate P's posting privileges must issue a public warning on the WG mailing list. This warning is equivalent to the Chair gauging WG rough consensus that P's posting privileges should be terminated if the situation does not improve immediately after the message reaches P. - If the situation does not improve, and the WG rough consensus does not change, the Chair can seek ADs approval to terminate P's posting privileges. AD approval is required to terminate P's posting privileges. - Posting privileges must not be terminated for more than 30(?) calendar days. - P has the right to object/appeal termination, even if there was WG rough consensus to terminate. - P must not change their e-mail address or use similar aliasing tricks in order to re-enable posting rights. However, there are no technical measures to enforce this rule. - Posting privileges for non-WG lists cannot be terminated. - All IETF WG lists subscribers are explicitly notified of the new rules 14(?) days before the rules kick in. This ensures that most subscribers are aware of the new rules. - All new WG list subscribers are explicitly notified of the new rules at the time of subscription Alex. _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 9 15:26:23 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA09681 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 15:26:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af3CZ-0004dR-3Z for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:25:51 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i09KPpwt017816 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 15:25:51 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af3CY-0004d6-7K for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:25:51 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA09468 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 15:25:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af3CR-0000PV-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:25:43 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af2ee-00034p-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 14:50:51 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af2Eh-0001uR-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 14:23:59 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af2Ei-0002WN-Ko; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 14:24:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af2EC-0002Vl-UC for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 14:23:29 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA25799 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 14:23:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af2EA-0001iI-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 14:23:26 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af1Nv-0001f2-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 13:29:30 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af1BW-000701-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 13:16:38 -0500 Received: from m106.maoz.com ([205.167.76.9]) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1Af1B2-0007xn-Up for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 13:16:09 -0500 Received: from m106.maoz.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by m106.maoz.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i09IFf6f012122; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 10:15:41 -0800 Received: (from dmm@localhost) by m106.maoz.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i09IFfY8012121; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 10:15:41 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: m106.maoz.com: dmm set sender to dmm@1-4-5.net using -f Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 10:15:41 -0800 From: David Meyer To: Alex Rousskov Cc: Margaret Wasserman , mpowr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [mpowr] SUMMARY: Mailing List Management Discussion Message-ID: <20040109181541.GA12092@1-4-5.net> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20040109064121.0427f9f8@ms101.mail1.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-public-key: http://www.1-4-5.net/~dmm/public-key.asc X-philosophy: "I just had to let it go" -- John Lennon Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 >> While I like testing, in this simple case covering a very rare >> condition, any dedicated testing would be a waste of time. We are not >> likely to get enough sample points to claim any statistical >> significance. We will waste time arguing about performance criteria >> and other experiment setup issues (there are already messages being >> posted about that). >> >> Let's document a simple set of rules and IESG can enable it >> immediately after the usual review stages. If enabling these rules >> causes serious problems, IESG can always suspend them immediately by >> instructing ADs to stop approving suspension requests. >> >> > Would anyone object if we made a proposal to the IESG to >> > try such an experiment? >> >> I would, for two reasons: >> - we need to document rules before we can experiment >> - we cannot stage a useful experiment for these rules >> >> > Does anyone want to write up a specific proposal along those lines? >> > James, do you want to try again? >> >> Here is an existing proposal we should not ignore, BTW: >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mrose-ietf-posting-04.txt >> Marshall suggests a relatively heavy procedure but with a long-term >> (1 year) suspension. >> >> FWIW, here are the simple rules skeleton I have in mind: >> >> - A Chair that wants to terminate P's posting privileges must >> issue a public warning on the WG mailing list. This warning >> is equivalent to the Chair gauging WG rough consensus that >> P's posting privileges should be terminated if the situation >> does not improve immediately after the message reaches P. It will not be possible to verify that any "message reaches P", so that clause doesn't seem too useful. Can you state your intention there differently? >> >> - If the situation does not improve, and the WG rough Define "improve" >> consensus does not change, the Chair can seek ADs Define "change" >> approval to terminate P's posting privileges. AD approval >> is required to terminate P's posting privileges. >> >> - Posting privileges must not be terminated for more than >> 30(?) calendar days. Sounds reasonable. >> - P has the right to object/appeal termination, even if there >> was WG rough consensus to terminate. (i). Appeal through what process? (ii). To whom is the appeal made? (iii). Are the appeals and their outcomes public (and can they be used as precedent for later appeals)? >> - P must not change their e-mail address or use similar >> aliasing tricks in order to re-enable posting rights. >> However, there are no technical measures to enforce this >> rule. >> >> - Posting privileges for non-WG lists cannot be terminated. Do you mean such as ietf@ietf.org? >> - All IETF WG lists subscribers are explicitly notified of the >> new rules 14(?) days before the rules kick in. This ensures >> that most subscribers are aware of the new rules. >> >> - All new WG list subscribers are explicitly notified of the >> new rules at the time of subscription Otherwise sounds reasonable. Dave _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 9 15:34:27 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11336 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 15:34:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af3KQ-0005Ch-3d for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:33:58 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i09KXwrO019997 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 15:33:58 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af3KP-0005CS-O8 for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:33:58 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11108 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 15:33:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af3KO-0002BM-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:33:56 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af3E2-0000mK-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:27:23 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af2mt-0004gc-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 14:59:19 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af2mc-0003UK-IO; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 14:59:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af2mM-0003T7-Gr for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 14:58:48 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA00471 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 14:58:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af2fM-0003LY-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 14:51:32 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af2Gx-0002pF-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 14:26:24 -0500 Received: from smtp.exodus.net ([66.35.230.236]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af1Ul-00033z-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 13:36:31 -0500 Received: from ms101.mail1.com (ms101.mail1.com [209.1.5.174]) by smtp.exodus.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i09KFrw3017897 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 12:15:53 -0800 Received: from ala-mrwtemp.thingmagic.com (unverified [24.61.30.237]) by accounting.espmail.com (Rockliffe SMTPRA 5.2.5) with ESMTP id ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 10:36:00 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040109130255.044b4360@ms101.mail1.com> X-Sender: margaret@thingmagic.com@ms101.mail1.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 13:10:01 -0500 To: Alex Rousskov From: Margaret Wasserman Subject: Re: [mpowr] SUMMARY: Mailing List Management Discussion Cc: mpowr@ietf.org In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.2.20040109064121.0427f9f8@ms101.mail1.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20040109064121.0427f9f8@ms101.mail1.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Hi Alex, > > One person voiced strong support for the proposal as written (Alex > > Rousskov). Alex Rousskov later argued against the proposal as > > unnecessary. > >Looks like my multiple personality disorder is coming back together >with amnesia! I do not recall doing any of the two mutually exclusive >things above. Maybe there are more than two personalities; that would >explain the amnesia part. :-) I'm sorry if I misunderstood... I was not trying to misrepresent your input. You were the first responder to James' proposal, and your response was very supportive. But, later you indicated that it might not be necessary to have a procedure for removing disruptive participants because the other participants could use mail filters to avoid seeing disruptive mail. I didn't consider these statements to be quite as mutually exclusive as my (perhaps too short) summary made them sound... But, I was not completely certain whether to place you in the "for" or "against" category for purposes of gauging consensus on the idea that WG chairs should be allowed to temporarily revoke the posting privileges of disruptive participants, so I had you mentally categorized as "unknown". The rest of your most recent post makes it pretty clear that you would agree with a set of rules that would allow WG chairs to temporarily suspend the posting privileges of disruptive posters, with appropriate warnings, AD approval and the possibility of appeal. Is that a fair interpretation? Margaret > > (1) There is rough consensus among the people active on this list > > that WG chairs should be allowed to revoke the posting privileges of > > disruptive participants with AD approval and the possibility of > > appeal. > > > > (2) There is rough consensus among the people active on this list > > that the details of James' proposal are too process-heavy, and that > > we need a lighter-weight proposal. > >I agree on both counts. However, I note that different people will >interpret a "lighter-weight proposal" differently. Some believe we >just need to document that Chairs can do whatever they want (as long >as the AD approves). Some believe that a very simple but documented >"warning" procedure must be followed. I belong to the second camp. > > > Margaret Wasserman and John Klensin also discussed the possibility > > that the IESG could conduct an experiment by temporarily granting > > this authority to WG chairs (for three to six months) to see what > > happens. > >While I like testing, in this simple case covering a very rare >condition, any dedicated testing would be a waste of time. We are not >likely to get enough sample points to claim any statistical >significance. We will waste time arguing about performance criteria >and other experiment setup issues (there are already messages being >posted about that). > >Let's document a simple set of rules and IESG can enable it >immediately after the usual review stages. If enabling these rules >causes serious problems, IESG can always suspend them immediately by >instructing ADs to stop approving suspension requests. > > > Would anyone object if we made a proposal to the IESG to > > try such an experiment? > >I would, for two reasons: > - we need to document rules before we can experiment > - we cannot stage a useful experiment for these rules > > > Does anyone want to write up a specific proposal along those lines? > > James, do you want to try again? > >Here is an existing proposal we should not ignore, BTW: >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mrose-ietf-posting-04.txt >Marshall suggests a relatively heavy procedure but with a long-term >(1 year) suspension. > >FWIW, here are the simple rules skeleton I have in mind: > > - A Chair that wants to terminate P's posting privileges must > issue a public warning on the WG mailing list. This warning > is equivalent to the Chair gauging WG rough consensus that > P's posting privileges should be terminated if the situation > does not improve immediately after the message reaches P. > > - If the situation does not improve, and the WG rough > consensus does not change, the Chair can seek ADs > approval to terminate P's posting privileges. AD approval > is required to terminate P's posting privileges. > > - Posting privileges must not be terminated for more than > 30(?) calendar days. > > - P has the right to object/appeal termination, even if there > was WG rough consensus to terminate. > > - P must not change their e-mail address or use similar > aliasing tricks in order to re-enable posting rights. > However, there are no technical measures to enforce this > rule. > > - Posting privileges for non-WG lists cannot be terminated. > > - All IETF WG lists subscribers are explicitly notified of the > new rules 14(?) days before the rules kick in. This ensures > that most subscribers are aware of the new rules. > > - All new WG list subscribers are explicitly notified of the > new rules at the time of subscription > > >Alex. _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 9 15:34:56 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11595 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 15:34:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af3Kt-0005Io-4b for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:34:27 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i09KYRIb020376 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 15:34:27 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af3Ks-0005IZ-V2 for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:34:27 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11307 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 15:34:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af3Kq-0002LL-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:34:24 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af3Er-0000wl-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:28:14 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af2va-0006OI-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:08:18 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af2vL-0003tQ-25; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:08:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af2vE-0003qz-RR for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:07:57 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA05432 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 15:07:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af2Hl-00037r-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 14:27:09 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af1Wa-0003ZJ-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 13:38:27 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af1FX-0007Mn-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 13:20:47 -0500 Received: from netcore.fi ([193.94.160.1]) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1Af0w0-0007Si-RR for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 13:00:37 -0500 Received: from localhost (pekkas@localhost) by netcore.fi (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i09I02J01093; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 20:00:02 +0200 Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 20:00:02 +0200 (EET) From: Pekka Savola To: James Kempf cc: Margaret Wasserman , Subject: Re: [mpowr] SUMMARY: Mailing List Management Discussion In-Reply-To: <00b201c3d6d5$8ed72b70$606015ac@dclkempt40> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, James Kempf wrote: > I'm not exactly sure what you mean by an experiment. Do you mean: Ok.. let me try to clarify. > 1) Write up the Code of Conduct, > 2) Set up a mailing list for an existing or proposed WG that requires a > click thorough on the Code of Conduct to join, > 3) Get IESG approval for the WG chairs to be able to remove anyone who > doesn't abide by the Code of Conduct according to some set of rules that > involve notifications of the distruptor Not quite.. > which is what I proposed, or do you mean: > > 1) Write up the Code of Conduct, > 2) Spam it to existing list particpants or make sure that it gets in the > infopack distributed by the Secretariat like the Note Well at face to face > meetings or something else to make sure that people are aware of it, > 3) Get IESG approval for the WG chairs to remove someone without any > specific rules but requiring AD approval > > which is a simplified version that is more in line with what Margaret > proposed originally, I though something along the lines of the above. Even 2) could be partially omitted at this point as long as there exists some documentation of the experiment and the process (e.g., maybe announce it on IETF-Announce, and put it in with the new WG lists). Quoting Margaret: Margaret Wasserman and John Klensin also discussed the possibility that the IESG could conduct an experiment by temporarily granting this authority to WG chairs (for three to six months) to see what happens. .. such an experiment wouldn't even require any (or many) rules, or spamming the code of conduct; I thought the main idea of the proposal was just to give this authority to some or all of the WG chairs, and see how they exercise it (if they do) .. and tune the process based on the results. (I don't have strong feelings on what to experiment, as long as it's light-weight enough.) I guess I'm quite confident that such power would not be misused, and if there were any "grey areas", running a live experiment might be able to flush them out. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 9 15:36:55 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA12394 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 15:36:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af3Mo-0005Tu-C4 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:36:26 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i09KaQtX021064 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 15:36:26 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af3Mo-0005TW-3W for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:36:26 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA12126 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 15:36:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af3Ml-0002u1-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:36:23 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af3Ia-0001i7-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:32:07 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af3Bp-0000EI-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:25:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af3Bp-0004Mh-Kp; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:25:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af3B4-0004EO-Hh for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:24:18 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA08575 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 15:24:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af3B2-0007iy-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:24:16 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af2as-0001o7-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 14:46:58 -0500 Received: from measurement-factory.com ([206.168.0.5]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af1sH-0000C1-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 14:00:49 -0500 Received: from measurement-factory.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i09J0Jk3069546; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 12:00:19 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Received: (from rousskov@localhost) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i09J0J6V069545; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 12:00:19 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rousskov) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 12:00:19 -0700 (MST) From: Alex Rousskov To: David Meyer cc: Margaret Wasserman , mpowr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [mpowr] SUMMARY: Mailing List Management Discussion In-Reply-To: <20040109181541.GA12092@1-4-5.net> Message-ID: References: <5.1.0.14.2.20040109064121.0427f9f8@ms101.mail1.com> <20040109181541.GA12092@1-4-5.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, David Meyer wrote: > >> - A Chair that wants to terminate P's posting privileges must > >> issue a public warning on the WG mailing list. This warning > >> is equivalent to the Chair gauging WG rough consensus that > >> P's posting privileges should be terminated if the situation > >> does not improve immediately after the message reaches P. > > It will not be possible to verify that any "message > reaches P", so that clause doesn't seem too useful. Can > you state your intention there differently? The intention is to give P a reasonable chance to shut up _before_ his posting rights are revoked. This is just a sketch, of course. If details are important at this stage, the draft should say something like The warning is considered to reach P if any of the following is true: - P has responded to the warning - the warning has been received through the mailing list by any list member 5(?) hours ago The above should cover cases where Chair's e-mail did not go through (immediately or at all) for technical reasons (most e-mail bounces are detected in 4 hours) and gives P some time to notice the message. We cannot engineer a process guarantee that P saw the warning. We must rely on a timeout, and we can debate whether 5 hours is enough. Note that a smart chair would try to talk to P before issuing a formal warning, so in most cases P should not be surprised (which means that some Ps will try to sabotage the process if they can; one cannot sabotage a timeout though). > >> - If the situation does not improve, and the WG rough > Define "improve" > >> consensus does not change, the Chair can seek ADs > Define "change" These are all up to the WG consensus to define on a case-by-case basis, as gauged by the Chair, as usual. We cannot define them as we cannot define "disruption". WG can agree on the situation assessment. The killer idea here is that the Chair is not just "acting up" but is gauging the consensus to terminate posting rights. If the Chair makes the wrong call, the WG can use the usual means of correcting the Chair's decision. The Chair cannot say "you must shut up because I want you to and the AD is fine with that". The Chair can only say "you must shut up because the WG thinks so and the AD is fine with that". > >> - P has the right to object/appeal termination, even if there > >> was WG rough consensus to terminate. > > (i). Appeal through what process? > > (ii). To whom is the appeal made? > > (iii). Are the appeals and their outcomes public (and > can they be used as precedent for later appeals)? I would prefer to leave these details for appeal-savvy IETFers to polish. I hope there is a standard IETF appeal process that can be applied here "as is". Is there? > >> - P must not change their e-mail address or use similar > >> aliasing tricks in order to re-enable posting rights. > >> However, there are no technical measures to enforce this > >> rule. > >> > >> - Posting privileges for non-WG lists cannot be terminated. > > Do you mean such as ietf@ietf.org? Yes, and solutions@alvestrand.no, mpowr@ietf.org, etc. Any public list without a formal WG charter/Chair. Such lists may have their own management mechanisms, of course. Our scope is a WG mailing list. Thanks, Alex. _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 9 15:37:42 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA12788 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 15:37:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af3NZ-0005eg-EH for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:37:13 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i09KbDxl021732 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 15:37:13 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af3NY-0005eK-Hv for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:37:12 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA12707 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 15:37:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af3NW-00037f-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:37:10 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af3K9-00026O-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:33:42 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af3Di-0000ip-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:27:02 -0500 Received: from optimus22.ietf.org ([132.151.6.22] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1Af3Dj-0003hB-GX for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:27:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af3Dg-0004nZ-AD; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:27:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af3Cm-0004gg-WE for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:26:05 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA09584 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 15:26:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af3Cl-0000VS-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:26:03 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af2fS-0003Ni-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 14:51:40 -0500 Received: from smtp.exodus.net ([66.35.230.237] helo=smtp02-w.exodus.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af2HA-0002ih-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 14:26:32 -0500 Received: from ms101.mail1.com (ms101.mail1.com [209.1.5.174]) by smtp02-w.exodus.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i09GajEv017322 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 10:36:45 -0600 Received: from ala-mrwtemp.thingmagic.com (unverified [24.61.30.237]) by accounting.espmail.com (Rockliffe SMTPRA 5.2.5) with ESMTP id for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 11:26:01 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040109084557.044db960@ms101.mail1.com> X-Sender: margaret@thingmagic.com@ms101.mail1.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 14:23:07 -0500 To: mpowr@ietf.org From: Margaret Wasserman Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [mpowr] SUMMARY: Further Work on WG (chair) Roles -- MPOWR WG Proposal Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 We had a lengthy discussion regarding the MPOWR WG proposal that was circulated by the IESG. The discussion started on the Solutions mailing list and was brought to mpowr in mid- stream by Margaret Wasserman. This discussion can be loosely categorized into three separate sub-discussions: (1) Should we form a WG to move some responsibility and authority from the IESG to WGs or WG chairs? (2) Does it make sense to give WG chairs more document shepherding responsibility, and if so what is the best way to do that? (3) Should WG chairs have the authority to block documents due to low technical quality, insufficient review, etc.? I will summarize each of these sub-discussions separately, and attempt determine if we have reached any useful conclusions. See the next three SUMMARY messages for these summaries. Margaret _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 9 15:39:53 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA13068 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 15:39:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af3Pg-0005zY-Ia for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:39:24 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i09KdOKv023026 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 15:39:24 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af3Pg-0005zJ-CH for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:39:24 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA12995 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 15:39:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af3Pe-0003YJ-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:39:22 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af3M3-0002h7-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:35:40 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af3Hc-0001UK-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:31:05 -0500 Received: from optimus22.ietf.org ([132.151.6.22] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1Af3Hc-00046m-6g for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:31:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af3HZ-00054T-Hw; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:31:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af3Gg-00050M-Hp for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:30:06 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA10199 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 15:30:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af3Gf-0001F5-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:30:05 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af35c-00077U-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:18:40 -0500 Received: from m106.maoz.com ([205.167.76.9]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af2T8-0005oE-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 14:38:54 -0500 Received: from m106.maoz.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by m106.maoz.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i09JcN6f013212; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 11:38:23 -0800 Received: (from dmm@localhost) by m106.maoz.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i09JcNCE013211; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 11:38:23 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: m106.maoz.com: dmm set sender to dmm@1-4-5.net using -f Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 11:38:23 -0800 From: David Meyer To: Alex Rousskov Cc: Margaret Wasserman , mpowr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [mpowr] SUMMARY: Mailing List Management Discussion Message-ID: <20040109193823.GA13050@1-4-5.net> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20040109064121.0427f9f8@ms101.mail1.com> <20040109181541.GA12092@1-4-5.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-public-key: http://www.1-4-5.net/~dmm/public-key.asc X-philosophy: "I just had to let it go" -- John Lennon Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 12:00:19PM -0700, Alex Rousskov wrote: >> >> On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, David Meyer wrote: >> >> > >> - A Chair that wants to terminate P's posting privileges must >> > >> issue a public warning on the WG mailing list. This warning >> > >> is equivalent to the Chair gauging WG rough consensus that >> > >> P's posting privileges should be terminated if the situation >> > >> does not improve immediately after the message reaches P. >> > >> > It will not be possible to verify that any "message >> > reaches P", so that clause doesn't seem too useful. Can >> > you state your intention there differently? >> >> The intention is to give P a reasonable chance to shut up _before_ his >> posting rights are revoked. This is just a sketch, of course. If >> details are important at this stage, the draft should say something >> like >> >> The warning is considered to reach P if any of the following >> is true: >> - P has responded to the warning >> - the warning has been received through the mailing list >> by any list member 5(?) hours ago Seems reasonable, + or - some delta. >> The above should cover cases where Chair's e-mail did not go through >> (immediately or at all) for technical reasons (most e-mail bounces are >> detected in 4 hours) and gives P some time to notice the message. >> >> We cannot engineer a process guarantee that P saw the warning. We must >> rely on a timeout, and we can debate whether 5 hours is enough. Note >> that a smart chair would try to talk to P before issuing a formal >> warning, so in most cases P should not be surprised (which means that >> some Ps will try to sabotage the process if they can; one cannot >> sabotage a timeout though). Sure. >> > >> - If the situation does not improve, and the WG rough >> > Define "improve" >> > >> consensus does not change, the Chair can seek ADs >> > Define "change" >> >> These are all up to the WG consensus to define on a case-by-case >> basis, as gauged by the Chair, as usual. We cannot define them as we >> cannot define "disruption". WG can agree on the situation assessment. >> >> The killer idea here is that the Chair is not just "acting up" but is >> gauging the consensus to terminate posting rights. If the Chair makes >> the wrong call, the WG can use the usual means of correcting the >> Chair's decision. The Chair cannot say "you must shut up because I >> want you to and the AD is fine with that". The Chair can only say "you >> must shut up because the WG thinks so and the AD is fine with that". >> >> > >> - P has the right to object/appeal termination, even if there >> > >> was WG rough consensus to terminate. >> > >> > (i). Appeal through what process? >> > >> > (ii). To whom is the appeal made? >> > >> > (iii). Are the appeals and their outcomes public (and >> > can they be used as precedent for later appeals)? >> >> I would prefer to leave these details for appeal-savvy IETFers to >> polish. I hope there is a standard IETF appeal process that can be >> applied here "as is". Is there? Section 3.2 of 2418 seems to allow for the entire activity being discussed here. However, unlike Section 4 of 2418, it does not cite section 3.4 (Contention and appeals) as a mechanism for resolution. This should probably be fixed when 2418 gets updated. BTW, section 6.5 of 2026, which all of this points at, would seem be sufficient to capture the desired process. >> > >> - P must not change their e-mail address or use similar >> > >> aliasing tricks in order to re-enable posting rights. >> > >> However, there are no technical measures to enforce this >> > >> rule. >> > >> >> > >> - Posting privileges for non-WG lists cannot be terminated. >> > >> > Do you mean such as ietf@ietf.org? >> >> Yes, and solutions@alvestrand.no, mpowr@ietf.org, etc. Any public list >> without a formal WG charter/Chair. Such lists may have their own >> management mechanisms, of course. Our scope is a WG mailing list. Gotcha. Dave _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 9 15:41:35 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA13509 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 15:41:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af3RK-00064t-ID for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:41:06 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i09Kf6fg023357 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 15:41:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af3RK-00064e-ED for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:41:06 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA13299 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 15:41:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af3RI-0003uS-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:41:04 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af3O6-0003EO-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:37:47 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af3KZ-0002Ff-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:34:07 -0500 Received: from optimus22.ietf.org ([132.151.6.22] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1Af3Ka-0004Sg-Gi for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:34:08 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af3KU-0005F8-D7; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:34:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af3KR-0005D4-8O for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:33:59 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11124 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 15:33:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af3KP-0002Bp-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:33:57 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af3E6-0000mv-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:27:27 -0500 Received: from smtp.exodus.net ([66.35.230.236]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af2nS-0004fr-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 14:59:54 -0500 Received: from ms101.mail1.com (ms101.mail1.com [209.1.5.174]) by smtp.exodus.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i09Lcpw3023134 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 13:38:51 -0800 Received: from ala-mrwtemp.thingmagic.com (unverified [24.61.30.237]) by accounting.espmail.com (Rockliffe SMTPRA 5.2.5) with ESMTP id for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 11:58:58 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040109142310.0427f9f8@ms101.mail1.com> X-Sender: margaret@thingmagic.com@ms101.mail1.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 14:55:01 -0500 To: mpowr@ietf.org From: Margaret Wasserman Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [mpowr] SUMMARY: Should we form a WG? Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 This message summarizes the first sub-discussion under the MPOWR WG Proposal thread: (1) Should we form a WG to move some responsibility and authority from the IESG to WGs or WG chairs? The IESG originally proposed that we consider formation of a WG in this area in a message posted to the IESG list and re-posted to solutions@alvestrand.no. Scott Bradner (posting on the solutions list, later quoted on this list by Pete Resnick) indicated that he did not see consensus that shifting authority or responsibility from the IESG to WGs or WG chairs was a good idea, but that he did think that having this discussion in the context of a WG would be reasonable. John Klensin stated that a wide-participation mailing list is a better forum for judging IETF consensus than a narrowly focused WG. He suggested that an IESG-driven process to perform "triage" on community-generated ideas with IETF-wide Last Calls for any document changes would be preferable to a WG. He pointed out that many of the suggested changes are already within the authority current assumed by the IESG. Lars-Erik Jonsson posted his agreement. Ted Hardie pointed out that the changes that have been proposed on the 'solutions' mailing list fall into two categories: those for which the IESG can "just do it", and those that require more community involvement to be successful. Margaret Wasserman and Harald Alvestrand both commented that the IESG, in isolation, does not have the perspective, ability and/or authority to make all of the decisions regarding what type of changes are needed to fix the problems facing the IETF. Keith Moore posted that (a) we should not form a WG with a pre-conceived goal of moving authority and responsibility to WG chairs and (b) we should not fragment the task of fixing the problems facing the IETF across multiple WGs. Instead, we should pursue a bottom-up approach focused on doing better engineering of protocols. Pete Resnick posted that a WG was a "phenomenally bad idea". He indicated that the IESG already has the authority to give chairs more responsibility and should do so. A WG would only delay execution. This leads to two conclusions: (1) We have rough consensus among those who have been active in this discussion that the IESG can and should take unilateral action, within the bounds of the process BCPs, to make changes that the IESG believes will improve the scalability, openness and/or effectiveness of our process. Many people supported the idea of this type of unilateral IESG action. (John Klensin, Pete Resnick, Margaret Wasserman, Ted Hardie, Harald Alvestrand, Lars-Erik Jonsson). No one disagreed. This is somewhat fortunate, as the IESG is already taking some steps in this area. (2) We have not reached any consensus about whether or not a WG in this area is a good idea. Several people posted in support of forming a WG in this area (Margaret Wasserman, Scott Bradner, Harald Alvestrand, Ted Hardie, John Loughney). Several people also posted against starting a WG in this area (John Klensin, Keith Moore, Pete Resnick, Lars-Erik Jonsson). Since this only represents a small portion of the people on this mailing list, it would be good to hear from others! IMO, it is worthwhile to continue this discussion. In particular, we need to determine what (if any) clarification or changes are required to our BCPs that can't (or shouldn't) be accomplished through unilateral IESG action. It would also be useful to circulate a strawman charter to help focus further discussion. _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 9 15:42:49 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA13841 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 15:42:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af3SW-00069K-MI for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:42:20 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i09KgKWa023629 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 15:42:20 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af3SU-00068z-OT for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:42:20 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA13748 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 15:42:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af3ST-0004CB-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:42:17 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af3QI-0003fm-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:40:04 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af3MR-0002pQ-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:36:04 -0500 Received: from optimus22.ietf.org ([132.151.6.22] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1Af3MR-0004hH-9U for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:36:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af3MO-0005Rc-Rl; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:36:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af3Lg-0005NI-Lx for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:35:16 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11747 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 15:35:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af3Lf-0002aW-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:35:15 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af3Gm-0001GS-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:30:14 -0500 Received: from measurement-factory.com ([206.168.0.5]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af36v-0007AF-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:20:01 -0500 Received: from measurement-factory.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i09KJWk3072378; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 13:19:32 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Received: (from rousskov@localhost) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i09KJW8J072377; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 13:19:32 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rousskov) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 13:19:32 -0700 (MST) From: Alex Rousskov To: Margaret Wasserman cc: mpowr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [mpowr] SUMMARY: Mailing List Management Discussion In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20040109130255.044b4360@ms101.mail1.com> Message-ID: References: <5.1.0.14.2.20040109064121.0427f9f8@ms101.mail1.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20040109064121.0427f9f8@ms101.mail1.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20040109130255.044b4360@ms101.mail1.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Margaret Wasserman wrote: > But, I was not completely certain whether to place you in the "for" > or "against" category for purposes of gauging consensus on the idea > that WG chairs should be allowed to temporarily revoke the posting > privileges of disruptive participants, I probably belong to the weird IETF minority that does not necessarily have a well-formed "for" or "against" opinion at the start of a discussion. I like to play devils advocate, sometimes against self. This naturally makes it hard to summarize consensus based on a unstructured discussion, but Robert complained enough about that already :-). > The rest of your most recent post makes it pretty clear that you > would agree with a set of rules that would allow WG chairs to > temporarily suspend the posting privileges of disruptive posters, > with appropriate warnings, AD approval and the possibility of > appeal. Is that a fair interpretation? I agree that the above are basic principles we should built upon. I would also add "WG rough consensus" as the most important principle. Since disruptions make forming and gauging consensus difficult, we have a conflict that we would have to resolve with more fast-acting power given to either the Chair or the participant in question. The specifics of the proposal would make this choice clear. For example, Marshall's draft-mrose-ietf-posting gives more fast-acting power to the participant while using a long-term punishment to balance things off. The rules I posted give more fast-acting power to the Chair while using a short-term punishment. Marshall's rules essentially assume that the disruption disease is usually very difficult to identify correctly, and that sick participants cannot be "cured". The rules I posted assume that most disruptions are easy to identify, and that sick participants will be cured by (or die from) a simple treatment. Neither of the assumptions is going to be 100% true, of course. Alex. _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 9 15:44:23 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA13995 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 15:44:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af3U3-0006D8-4b for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:43:55 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i09KhtTw023868 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 15:43:55 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af3U2-0006Ct-UX for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:43:54 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA13952 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 15:43:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af3U1-0004TX-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:43:53 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af3S5-00045W-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:41:54 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af3PL-0003UO-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:39:03 -0500 Received: from optimus22.ietf.org ([132.151.6.22] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1Af3PM-000516-1i for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:39:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af3PI-0005yN-NR; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:39:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af3Og-0005v1-Cf for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:38:22 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA12874 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 15:38:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af3Oe-0003Mo-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:38:21 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af3L6-0002QU-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:34:42 -0500 Received: from measurement-factory.com ([206.168.0.5]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af3FJ-00012I-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:28:41 -0500 Received: from measurement-factory.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i09KSek3072744; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 13:28:40 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Received: (from rousskov@localhost) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i09KSeTI072743; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 13:28:40 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rousskov) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 13:28:40 -0700 (MST) From: Alex Rousskov To: Pekka Savola cc: mpowr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [mpowr] SUMMARY: Mailing List Management Discussion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Pekka Savola wrote: > .. such an experiment wouldn't even require any (or many) rules, or > spamming the code of conduct; I thought the main idea of the > proposal was just to give this authority to some or all of the WG > chairs, and see how they exercise it (if they do) .. and tune the > process based on the results. I would be opposed to such an experiment because its implied assumption that we can measure success and tune based on results does not hold in this case. We are talking about rare, exceptional circumstances and, hence, we are unlikely to get enough sampling points, especially if the rules work OK. > I guess I'm quite confident that such power would not be misused, > and if there were any "grey areas", running a live experiment might > be able to flush them out. I suspect we will get no results short-term and inconclusive results long-term (some problems, some success stories). Thus, we will end up in the same situation we are today, except some people will claim that the "results" prove their point that Chairs should have more/less power. IMHO, we should document the rules, pass the usual IETF review process, and then ask IESG to enabled them. IESG can always immediately disable the rules in case of a disaster by asking ADs not to approve any Chair requests. So we are safe from the worst case scenario point of view. Alex. _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 9 15:46:43 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA14350 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 15:46:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af3WI-0006Iy-Gb for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:46:14 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i09KkEZD024230 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 15:46:14 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af3WI-0006Ij-B1 for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:46:14 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA14224 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 15:46:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af3WF-0004qw-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:46:11 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af3U9-0004Uq-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:44:01 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af3SD-00048P-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:42:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af3SD-00067k-Tc; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:42:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af3Rd-00065I-6x for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:41:25 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA13408 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 15:41:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af3Rb-0003xp-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:41:23 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af3OX-0003Ky-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:38:14 -0500 Received: from measurement-factory.com ([206.168.0.5]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af3Kw-0002NG-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:34:30 -0500 Received: from measurement-factory.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i09KYUk3072934; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 13:34:30 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Received: (from rousskov@localhost) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i09KYU8a072933; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 13:34:30 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rousskov) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 13:34:30 -0700 (MST) From: Alex Rousskov To: Margaret Wasserman cc: mpowr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [mpowr] SUMMARY: Further Work on WG (chair) Roles -- MPOWR WG Proposal In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20040109084557.044db960@ms101.mail1.com> Message-ID: References: <5.1.0.14.2.20040109084557.044db960@ms101.mail1.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Margaret Wasserman wrote: > This discussion can be loosely categorized into three separate > sub-discussions: > > (1) Should we form a WG to move some responsibility > and authority from the IESG to WGs or WG chairs? > (2) Does it make sense to give WG chairs more document > shepherding responsibility, and if so what is the > best way to do that? > (3) Should WG chairs have the authority to block > documents due to low technical quality, > insufficient review, etc.? It would be nice if you could replace "WG chairs" with "WG" in all of the above items when categorizing. There was no consensus whether WG Chair should be the object of these changes or the WG as a whole. Let's stick with a more general case (WG as a whole) for now and decide on Chair/author/participant role at the next level of detail. This approach will prevent people like me from objecting to your categorization itself as a starting point. Thanks, Alex. _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 9 16:26:59 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA16593 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:26:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af49G-0007lE-RV for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:26:30 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i09LQUZD029826 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:26:30 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af49G-0007kw-Fh for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:26:30 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA16410 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:26:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af49E-0007Lz-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:26:28 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af46x-0006wq-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:24:08 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af44o-0006mm-01 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:21:54 -0500 Received: from optimus22.ietf.org ([132.151.6.22] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1Af3tO-0008Ue-Qp for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:10:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af3tK-0007RM-Ua; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:10:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af3tA-0007Qc-P6 for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:09:52 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA15641 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:09:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af3t9-0006SK-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:09:51 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af3rR-0006Pf-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:08:06 -0500 Received: from smtp.exodus.net ([66.35.230.236]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af3pv-0006Fz-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:06:31 -0500 Received: from ms101.mail1.com (ms101.mail1.com [209.1.5.174]) by smtp.exodus.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i09Mjrw3025260 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 14:45:53 -0800 Received: from ala-mrwtemp.thingmagic.com (unverified [24.61.30.237]) by accounting.espmail.com (Rockliffe SMTPRA 5.2.5) with ESMTP id for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 13:06:01 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040109142330.044f8e38@ms101.mail1.com> X-Sender: margaret@thingmagic.com@ms101.mail1.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:55:09 -0500 To: mpowr@ietf.org From: Margaret Wasserman Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [mpowr] SUMMARY: Give WG chairs more shepherding responsibility? Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Here is the summary of the second sub-discussion under the topic of the MPOWR WG Proposal: (2) Does it make sense to give WG chairs more document shepherding responsibility, and if so what is the best way to do that? This discussion was closely related to (and intertwined with) the discussion on whether or not the IESG can and should take unilateral action to fix these problems. Pete Resnick pointed out that he had heard a good deal of support for the idea of shifting responsibility to WG chairs, but no consensus to shift authority. Pete gave the example that ADs already have the authority to shift most document shepherding tasks to WG chairs, so a WG isn't necessary to do that. Ted Hardie pointed out that the ability for some ADs to give this responsibility to WG chairs doesn't make this an IETF-wide policy. It is still done at the pleasure of the AD. BCP changes would be needed to make this an IETF- wide policy. James Kempf expressed concern that shifting more responsibility to WG chairs without more authority will drive people away. John Loughney agreed. Pete Resnick clarified that when he said "authority", he was specifically referring to the authority to block documents. Margaret Wasserman pointed out that giving WG chairs more responsibility for document shepherding is consistent with the current BCPs, but would require changes to our internal procedures and tools. The IESG is forming the PROTO team to investigate the required changes and make recommendations. In conclusion: There seems to be consensus amongst those who have participated in the discussion that it would be good to give WG chairs more responsibility for shepherding documents after they are sent to the IESG for review. Several people expressed support for the idea of assigning this type of responsibility to WG chairs (Margaret Wasserman, James Kempf, Pete Resnick, John Klensin, Dave Crocker). Several people also pointed out that the IESG (or individual ADs) can assign this responsibility to WG chairs without changes to the BCPs. No one stated that they would object to moving this type of responsibility to WG chairs. Again, we've only heard from a small portion of the mailing list on this issue. Would others like to comment? _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 9 16:48:38 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA18565 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:48:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af4UE-0000Zv-7Z for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:48:10 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i09LmAXf002217 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:48:10 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af4UE-0000Zg-13 for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:48:10 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA18425 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:48:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af4UC-0001LM-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:48:08 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af4SJ-000180-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:46:11 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af4QZ-000118-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:44:23 -0500 Received: from optimus22.ietf.org ([132.151.6.22] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1Af4JV-00033c-Ro for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:37:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af4JR-00006R-6f; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:37:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af4IT-00005B-KN for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:36:01 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA18160 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:35:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af4IQ-0000kV-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:35:58 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af4Gy-0000gg-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:34:28 -0500 Received: from key1.docomolabs-usa.com ([216.98.102.225] helo=fridge.docomolabs-usa.com ident=fwuser) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af4GC-0000ZS-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:33:40 -0500 Message-ID: <01b801c3d6f8$4e34c320$606015ac@dclkempt40> From: "James Kempf" To: "Alex Rousskov" , "Pekka Savola" Cc: References: Subject: Re: [mpowr] SUMMARY: Mailing List Management Discussion Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 13:34:03 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The point was made that disruptions are (or should be) rare occurances and that running an experiment with one or a few WGs may not collect much data. I agree. I think it would make more sense for the IESG to delegate the mailing list removal power for some period of time (perhaps a year or two), then keep careful track of what happens. At the end of the trial period, the exact procedure can be adjusted based on the results of the trial. jak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alex Rousskov" To: "Pekka Savola" Cc: Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 12:28 PM Subject: Re: [mpowr] SUMMARY: Mailing List Management Discussion > > On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Pekka Savola wrote: > > > .. such an experiment wouldn't even require any (or many) rules, or > > spamming the code of conduct; I thought the main idea of the > > proposal was just to give this authority to some or all of the WG > > chairs, and see how they exercise it (if they do) .. and tune the > > process based on the results. > > I would be opposed to such an experiment because its implied > assumption that we can measure success and tune based on results does > not hold in this case. We are talking about rare, exceptional > circumstances and, hence, we are unlikely to get enough sampling > points, especially if the rules work OK. > > > I guess I'm quite confident that such power would not be misused, > > and if there were any "grey areas", running a live experiment might > > be able to flush them out. > > I suspect we will get no results short-term and inconclusive results > long-term (some problems, some success stories). Thus, we will end up > in the same situation we are today, except some people will claim that > the "results" prove their point that Chairs should have more/less > power. > > IMHO, we should document the rules, pass the usual IETF review > process, and then ask IESG to enabled them. IESG can always > immediately disable the rules in case of a disaster by asking ADs not > to approve any Chair requests. So we are safe from the worst case > scenario point of view. > > Alex. > > > _______________________________________________ > mpowr mailing list > mpowr@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr > _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 9 16:48:41 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA18582 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:48:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af4UH-0000aZ-6q for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:48:13 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i09LmD36002257 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:48:13 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af4UH-0000aK-2b for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:48:13 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA18441 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:48:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af4UF-0001Lx-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:48:11 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af4SO-00018w-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:46:16 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af4Qi-000118-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:44:33 -0500 Received: from optimus22.ietf.org ([132.151.6.22] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1Af4HZ-0002rV-Ok for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:35:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af4HW-0008UP-TO; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:35:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af4Gn-0008Rt-Rc for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:34:17 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA17978 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:34:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af4Gm-0000eR-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:34:16 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af4Eu-0000UO-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:32:21 -0500 Received: from measurement-factory.com ([206.168.0.5]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af4DI-0000He-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:30:41 -0500 Received: from measurement-factory.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i09LUZk3074924; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 14:30:35 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Received: (from rousskov@localhost) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i09LUZxd074923; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 14:30:35 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rousskov) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 14:30:35 -0700 (MST) From: Alex Rousskov To: Margaret Wasserman cc: mpowr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [mpowr] SUMMARY: Give WG chairs more shepherding responsibility? In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20040109142330.044f8e38@ms101.mail1.com> Message-ID: References: <5.1.0.14.2.20040109142330.044f8e38@ms101.mail1.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Margaret Wasserman wrote: > There seems to be consensus amongst those who have participated in > the discussion that it would be good to give WG chairs more > responsibility for shepherding documents after they are sent to the > IESG for review. I have three comments regarding the above statement: (a) Before gauging consensus, please define shepherding. Otherwise, people may be agreeing to something they will be surprised by later. (b) Could you gauge consensus using the "WG" or "WG representative" wording instead of a "WG chair" wording? I agree that the WG should be more involved in some stages of the review, but I am not ready to assign that responsibility to Chairs. (c) We may be discussing a low-level procedure that depends on the changes in IETF review process. It seems to me that this discussion should be postponed, and soon-to-be-forced-into-existence ICAR WG should address the problem we are trying to solve here. ICAR higher-level solutions may remove the need for low-level tuning or may require low-level tuning in a very different environment. Yet another argument against the premature micro-level segmentation of the Big Picture effort! Thanks, Alex. _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 9 16:48:45 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA18601 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:48:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af4UL-0000b0-BP for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:48:17 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i09LmHmI002284 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:48:17 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af4UL-0000al-6F for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:48:17 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA18456 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:48:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af4UJ-0001Mi-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:48:15 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af4SV-0001A9-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:46:23 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af4Qr-000118-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:44:41 -0500 Received: from optimus22.ietf.org ([132.151.6.22] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1Af4Dm-0002Pk-M8 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:31:10 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af4De-0008H3-5R; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:31:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af4Ck-0008Ag-3J for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:30:06 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA17442 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:30:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af4Ci-0000C7-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:30:04 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af4Aq-0007h1-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:28:08 -0500 Received: from key1.docomolabs-usa.com ([216.98.102.225] helo=fridge.docomolabs-usa.com ident=fwuser) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af48k-0007EI-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:25:59 -0500 Message-ID: <019b01c3d6f7$36ca0020$606015ac@dclkempt40> From: "James Kempf" To: "Alex Rousskov" , "David Meyer" Cc: "Margaret Wasserman" , References: <5.1.0.14.2.20040109064121.0427f9f8@ms101.mail1.com> <20040109181541.GA12092@1-4-5.net> Subject: Re: [mpowr] SUMMARY: Mailing List Management Discussion Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 13:26:15 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alex, I don't think you can invoke WG concensus for cases like this. The problem is, when a serious disruption is in progress, community-based decision making is effectively under assault by the distruptor and the normal WG decision making process has broken down. To restore that environment, the disruptor must be given the opportunity to shut up and behave, then, if they don't, they need to be shut down as quickly as possible. The disruptor has basically broken the rules of community-based decision making. (I'm speaking from experience here). Of course, there is always the possibility that the WG chair makes a judgement error, which is why consulting the AD is a good idea. So I'd say: send a private email warning to the disruptor and contact the AD (actually, a phone conversation with the AD is probably a better idea than email just to make sure there is no misunderstanding, though an email followup where the AD says "I agree" should also occur to establish a paper trail in case there is an appeal). Then, if the disruptor continues to disrupt, remove from the list and post a notice to the list saying "So and so has been removed from the list for not following good mailing list conduct, they will be reinstated when the penalty period is over". As for what consitutes a disruption, that's again a judgement call, but I think having a written code of email conduct for guidance to WG chairs and ADs would be very helpful in reducing the number of judgement errors. jak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alex Rousskov" To: "David Meyer" Cc: "Margaret Wasserman" ; Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 11:00 AM Subject: Re: [mpowr] SUMMARY: Mailing List Management Discussion > > On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, David Meyer wrote: > > > >> - A Chair that wants to terminate P's posting privileges must > > >> issue a public warning on the WG mailing list. This warning > > >> is equivalent to the Chair gauging WG rough consensus that > > >> P's posting privileges should be terminated if the situation > > >> does not improve immediately after the message reaches P. > > > > It will not be possible to verify that any "message > > reaches P", so that clause doesn't seem too useful. Can > > you state your intention there differently? > > The intention is to give P a reasonable chance to shut up _before_ his > posting rights are revoked. This is just a sketch, of course. If > details are important at this stage, the draft should say something > like > > The warning is considered to reach P if any of the following > is true: > - P has responded to the warning > - the warning has been received through the mailing list > by any list member 5(?) hours ago > > The above should cover cases where Chair's e-mail did not go through > (immediately or at all) for technical reasons (most e-mail bounces are > detected in 4 hours) and gives P some time to notice the message. > > We cannot engineer a process guarantee that P saw the warning. We must > rely on a timeout, and we can debate whether 5 hours is enough. Note > that a smart chair would try to talk to P before issuing a formal > warning, so in most cases P should not be surprised (which means that > some Ps will try to sabotage the process if they can; one cannot > sabotage a timeout though). > > > >> - If the situation does not improve, and the WG rough > > Define "improve" > > >> consensus does not change, the Chair can seek ADs > > Define "change" > > These are all up to the WG consensus to define on a case-by-case > basis, as gauged by the Chair, as usual. We cannot define them as we > cannot define "disruption". WG can agree on the situation assessment. > > The killer idea here is that the Chair is not just "acting up" but is > gauging the consensus to terminate posting rights. If the Chair makes > the wrong call, the WG can use the usual means of correcting the > Chair's decision. The Chair cannot say "you must shut up because I > want you to and the AD is fine with that". The Chair can only say "you > must shut up because the WG thinks so and the AD is fine with that". > > > >> - P has the right to object/appeal termination, even if there > > >> was WG rough consensus to terminate. > > > > (i). Appeal through what process? > > > > (ii). To whom is the appeal made? > > > > (iii). Are the appeals and their outcomes public (and > > can they be used as precedent for later appeals)? > > I would prefer to leave these details for appeal-savvy IETFers to > polish. I hope there is a standard IETF appeal process that can be > applied here "as is". Is there? > > > >> - P must not change their e-mail address or use similar > > >> aliasing tricks in order to re-enable posting rights. > > >> However, there are no technical measures to enforce this > > >> rule. > > >> > > >> - Posting privileges for non-WG lists cannot be terminated. > > > > Do you mean such as ietf@ietf.org? > > Yes, and solutions@alvestrand.no, mpowr@ietf.org, etc. Any public list > without a formal WG charter/Chair. Such lists may have their own > management mechanisms, of course. Our scope is a WG mailing list. > > Thanks, > > Alex. > > > _______________________________________________ > mpowr mailing list > mpowr@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr > _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 9 16:53:12 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA19147 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:53:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af4Yc-0000tg-NI for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:52:42 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i09LqgDL003442 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:52:42 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af4Yc-0000tR-JL for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:52:42 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA19091 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:52:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af4Ya-0001uq-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:52:40 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af4Wc-0001g7-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:50:38 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af4V3-0001US-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:49:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af4V4-0000gR-Cg; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:49:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af4Uc-0000dd-7L for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:48:34 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA18557 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:48:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af4Ua-0001QF-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:48:32 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af4Su-0001Eg-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:46:49 -0500 Received: from measurement-factory.com ([206.168.0.5]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af4RN-00011y-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:45:14 -0500 Received: from measurement-factory.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i09Lj4k3075477; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 14:45:04 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Received: (from rousskov@localhost) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i09Lj4us075476; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 14:45:04 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rousskov) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 14:45:04 -0700 (MST) From: Alex Rousskov To: James Kempf cc: mpowr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [mpowr] SUMMARY: Mailing List Management Discussion In-Reply-To: <019b01c3d6f7$36ca0020$606015ac@dclkempt40> Message-ID: References: <5.1.0.14.2.20040109064121.0427f9f8@ms101.mail1.com> <20040109181541.GA12092@1-4-5.net> <019b01c3d6f7$36ca0020$606015ac@dclkempt40> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, James Kempf wrote: > I don't think you can invoke WG concensus for cases like this. I do not see why not. Your arguments below seem to be unrelated to WG consensus (they may be related to WG ability to communicate consensus efficiently, which is a very different thing). When issuing a formal warning, the Chair should be reasonably sure that the WG would support Chair actions (and participants would express that opinion in the absence of the disruption). That means the Chair is gauging/expressing WG rough consensus. As usual, the Chair may be wrong, but it does not change the justification for these rules or guidelines for the Chair. In other words, we are telling the Chairs to act if they think the WG would support such an action and NOT when they think the WG would be better off after Chair's action. The Chair is expressing WG consensus rather than her own opinion. > The problem is, when a serious disruption is in progress, > community-based decision making is effectively under assault by the > distruptor and the normal WG decision making process has broken > down. True. Fortunately, WG Chair does not need any community-based decision making process to declare rough consensus, which is all that is needed to issue a warning. If the Chair is wrong, many times, s/he will be fired. > To restore that environment, the disruptor must be given the > opportunity to shut up and behave, then, if they don't, they need to > be shut down as quickly as possible. The disruptor has basically > broken the rules of community-based decision making. (I'm speaking > from experience here). Agreed. The rules I posted do exactly that. > Of course, there is always the possibility that the WG chair makes a > judgement error, which is why consulting the AD is a good idea. So > I'd say: send a private email warning to the disruptor and contact > the AD (actually, a phone conversation with the AD is probably a > better idea than email just to make sure there is no > misunderstanding, though an email followup where the AD says "I > agree" should also occur to establish a paper trail in case there is > an appeal). Then, if the disruptor continues to disrupt, remove from > the list and post a notice to the list saying "So and so has been > removed from the list for not following good mailing list conduct, > they will be reinstated when the penalty period is over". I believe the rules I posted allow for the above to happen but create no load for the AD if the warning works. The AD does not need to be involved if the WG cured itself. BTW, the rules I posted are missing a rule to publicly declare a decision to revoke P's posting rights. That should be added. > As for what consitutes a disruption, that's again a judgement call, > but I think having a written code of email conduct for guidance to > WG chairs and ADs would be very helpful in reducing the number of > judgement errors. Agreed. Alex. _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 9 17:12:39 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA21810 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 17:12:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af4rU-0002A1-7r for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:12:12 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i09MCCaX008302 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 17:12:12 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af4rT-00029g-NW for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:12:11 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA21553 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 17:12:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af4rR-00058E-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:12:09 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af4o5-0004QD-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:08:42 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af4l1-0003wd-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:05:31 -0500 Received: from optimus22.ietf.org ([132.151.6.22] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1Af4fp-0005d5-Dd for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:00:16 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af4fj-00015g-N6; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:00:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af4f7-00012w-Dg for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:59:25 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA19797 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:59:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af4f5-00034d-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:59:23 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af4cv-0002gs-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:57:09 -0500 Received: from smtp.exodus.net ([66.35.230.237] helo=smtp02-w.exodus.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af4ar-0002BD-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:55:02 -0500 Received: from ms101.mail1.com (ms101.mail1.com [209.1.5.174]) by smtp02-w.exodus.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i09J59Ev026990 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 13:05:09 -0600 Received: from ala-mrwtemp.thingmagic.com (unverified [24.61.30.237]) by accounting.espmail.com (Rockliffe SMTPRA 5.2.5) with ESMTP id for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 13:54:25 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040109164956.044d9f80@ms101.mail1.com> X-Sender: margaret@thingmagic.com@ms101.mail1.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:52:09 -0500 To: mpowr@ietf.org From: Margaret Wasserman Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [mpowr] Utility of Summaries Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Hi All, I think that the mailing list summaries will be much more useful if people try to avoid having discussions in threads that start with the word "SUMMARY". Comments on the summaries are okay -- in particular, I think it is good to mention any mistakes that I've made within the "SUMMARY" thread. But, please use a new subject line for discussions that are spawned by the summaries. Thanks, Margaret _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 9 17:12:47 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA21876 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 17:12:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af4rc-0002Ah-2q for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:12:20 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i09MCK2Q008341 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 17:12:20 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af4rb-0002AS-UZ for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:12:20 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA21629 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 17:12:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af4rZ-0005Aw-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:12:17 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af4oQ-0004U2-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:09:04 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af4l7-0003vi-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:05:37 -0500 Received: from optimus22.ietf.org ([132.151.6.22] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1Af4Z8-0004q7-PH for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:53:53 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af4Yv-0000vI-BV; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:53:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af4Y4-0000rv-7R for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:52:08 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA19015 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:52:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af4Y2-0001ok-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:52:06 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af4W1-0001Zp-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:50:02 -0500 Received: from measurement-factory.com ([206.168.0.5]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af4UA-0001L1-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:48:07 -0500 Received: from measurement-factory.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i09Lm4k3075658; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 14:48:04 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Received: (from rousskov@localhost) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i09Lm4G4075657; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 14:48:04 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rousskov) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 14:48:04 -0700 (MST) From: Alex Rousskov To: James Kempf cc: mpowr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [mpowr] SUMMARY: Mailing List Management Discussion In-Reply-To: <01b801c3d6f8$4e34c320$606015ac@dclkempt40> Message-ID: References: <01b801c3d6f8$4e34c320$606015ac@dclkempt40> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, James Kempf wrote: > I think it would make more sense for the IESG to delegate the > mailing list removal power for some period of time (perhaps a year > or two), then keep careful track of what happens. At the end of the > trial period, the exact procedure can be adjusted based on the > results of the trial. Furthermore, we do not need a trial period to adjust the procedure based on past results. We can adjust the procedure as needed when and if we have enough results. Document and enable the rules. Then monitor and make adjustments as needed, as usual. No need for a special case here, IMO. Alex. _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 9 17:12:52 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA21915 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 17:12:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af4rf-0002B2-Vk for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:12:24 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i09MCNgB008362 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 17:12:23 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af4rf-0002An-Qu for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:12:23 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA21663 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 17:12:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af4rd-0005CG-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:12:21 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af4oa-0004Vk-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:09:14 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af4l9-0003wd-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:05:40 -0500 Received: from optimus22.ietf.org ([132.151.6.22] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1Af4Z3-0004q5-9k for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:53:10 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af4Yw-0000vx-83; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:53:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af4Yj-0000uC-E0 for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:52:49 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA19109 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:52:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af4Yh-0001w6-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:52:47 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af4Wm-0001iB-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:50:48 -0500 Received: from h195n1fls311o871.telia.com ([213.64.174.195] helo=chardonnay.local.levkowetz.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af4Vf-0001VI-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:49:40 -0500 Received: from chardonnay ([127.0.0.1] helo=chardonnay.local.levkowetz.com) by chardonnay.local.levkowetz.com with smtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1Af4Va-0005pO-00; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 22:49:34 +0100 Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 22:49:21 +0100 From: Henrik Levkowetz To: Alex Rousskov Cc: Margaret Wasserman , mpowr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [mpowr] SUMMARY: Give WG chairs more shepherding responsibility? Message-Id: <20040109224921.63512829.henrik@levkowetz.com> In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.2.20040109142330.044f8e38@ms101.mail1.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.6claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Friday 9 January 2004, Alex Rousskov wrote: [Margaret:] > > There seems to be consensus amongst those who have participated in > > the discussion that it would be good to give WG chairs more > > responsibility for shepherding documents after they are sent to the > > IESG for review. ... > (b) Could you gauge consensus using the "WG" or > "WG representative" wording instead of a "WG chair" > wording? I agree that the WG should be more involved > in some stages of the review, but I am not ready > to assign that responsibility to Chairs. That would be to gauge consensus on a different topic. I agree with Margaret's summary, and understand that you don't agree; but consensus doesn't mean unanimous agreement. Henrik _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 9 17:27:25 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA23677 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 17:27:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af55l-0002fy-IK for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:26:57 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i09MQvrw010280 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 17:26:57 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af55l-0002fj-Bj for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:26:57 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA23587 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 17:26:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af55j-00078J-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:26:55 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af53h-0006rz-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:24:50 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af51w-0006fV-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:23:00 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af51x-0002Yc-8H; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:23:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af51L-0002Wj-Lj for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:22:23 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA23110 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 17:22:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af51J-0006ZV-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:22:21 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af4zj-0006HU-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:20:43 -0500 Received: from key1.docomolabs-usa.com ([216.98.102.225] helo=fridge.docomolabs-usa.com ident=fwuser) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af4xn-0005xZ-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:18:44 -0500 Message-ID: <020601c3d6fe$9a5513d0$606015ac@dclkempt40> From: "James Kempf" To: "Alex Rousskov" Cc: References: <5.1.0.14.2.20040109064121.0427f9f8@ms101.mail1.com> <20040109181541.GA12092@1-4-5.net> <019b01c3d6f7$36ca0020$606015ac@dclkempt40> Subject: Re: [mpowr] SUMMARY: Mailing List Management Discussion Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 14:19:07 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I do not see why not. Your arguments below seem to be unrelated to WG > consensus (they may be related to WG ability to communicate consensus > efficiently, which is a very different thing). > Concensus is a process that involves not only people forming opinions but also communicating them in a group setting. If the ability to communicate is disrupted, the concensus process is disrupted. jak _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 9 17:28:30 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA23811 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 17:28:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af56p-0002ha-6R for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:28:03 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i09MS3cm010380 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 17:28:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af56p-0002hL-2J for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:28:03 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA23715 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 17:27:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af56m-0007IL-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:28:00 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af54p-0006yf-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:26:00 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af52s-0006jV-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:23:58 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af52t-0002bN-Ts; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:23:59 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af52l-0002aM-8d for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:23:51 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA23284 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 17:23:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af52j-0006hm-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:23:49 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af50n-0006Tf-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:21:49 -0500 Received: from smtp.exodus.net ([66.35.230.237] helo=smtp02-w.exodus.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af4yr-00063n-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:19:49 -0500 Received: from ms101.mail1.com (ms101.mail1.com [209.1.5.174]) by smtp02-w.exodus.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i09JU1Ev029640 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 13:30:01 -0600 Received: from ala-mrwtemp.thingmagic.com (unverified [24.61.30.237]) by accounting.espmail.com (Rockliffe SMTPRA 5.2.5) with ESMTP id for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 14:19:17 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040109150128.044e0e10@ms101.mail1.com> X-Sender: margaret@thingmagic.com@ms101.mail1.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:17:01 -0500 To: mpowr@ietf.org From: Margaret Wasserman Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [mpowr] SUMMARY: Give WG chairs authority to block documents? Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 This message summarizes the third sub-discussion that we had under the heading of the MPOWR WG Proposal: (3) Should WG chairs have the authority to block documents due to low technical quality, insufficient review, etc.? This discussion took place under the MPOWR WG Proposal subject and also under the subject "Quality Control and that nasty A word". This discussion grew out of the discussion (mentioned in earlier summaries) about the distinction between shifting more responsibility to WG chairs and shifting more authority to WG chairs. In particular, Pete Resnick thought that he heard many people at the plenary say that giving WG chairs "the authority to say no" was a really bad idea. In response, Dave Crocker indicated that the focus on authority is misplaced. What we really need to do is foster more collaboration. James Kempf pointed out that if we want chairs to be responsible for making sure that documents are well-reviewed and that the review comments are addressed, we will need to give them the authority to hold documents until these criteria are met. Pete Resnick stated his opinion that chairs don't need more authority to hold document in this case, and offered a definition of consensus that would allow WG chairs to hold these documents except in cases where the WG has specifically considered these questions and does believe that sufficient review has been obtained and the issues addressed. James disagreed that chairs have this authority under the existing BCPs. A discussion ensued, the conclusion of which is that, although WG chairs have broad authority to define and determine cosensus, only ADs currently have the authority to hold a document because the document has technical problems or design flaws. Dave Crocker pointed out that this is correct and appropriate. The WG chair should never be able to overrule WG consensus. James Kempf commented that, in order for an early review system to be effective, the comments need to be binding. In other words, WGs need to be required to address them. James used the analogy of a QA department in a software company. Pete Resnick pointed out that the IETF is a open, consensus- driven organization and that this type of organization inherently gives more responsibility to its leaders than authority. Some discussion ensued about whether the IETF actually is a hierarchy or not... Dave Crocker pointed out that in the IETF, the troops really are in charge. Working groups have inherent power, whereas WG chairs and ADs only have derived power. He later pointed out that explicitly assigning authority to one agent implies that the other agents do not have the responsibility. In other words, if we may WG chairs responsible for document quality, that implies that the WGs are not responsible for quality. In response, Alex Rousskov started a thread with the subject "Troops vs.Superpower" which discussed the relative authority of the IESG vs. WGs. This eventually led to Alex Conta and Robert Snively making a suggestion to move all technical authority out of the IESG. Alex Rousskov, James Kempf and Pekka Savola disagreed, citing a lack of people willing to do completely non-technical IETF work. Robert Snively suggested that this could be addressed by making the IESG a paid secretariat function. One useful take-away from this portion of the conversation is that it is important, as we discuss making changes to the responsibility/authority of different positions, to be mindful of what motivates people to participate in the IETF at each level. Alex Conta pointed that having WG chairs be involved in the technical work of a WG can present a conflict of interest. Pekka Savola pointed out that this is often addressed by having more than one WG chair, so that no one has to serve in the chair role for his own document. There was some further discussion about how/if WG chairs should be involved in the technical work of their WGs. Conclusions: I was unable to draw any firm conclusions from this portion of the discussion, except that it is clear that we do not have consensus among those involved in this discussion about either: (1) What level authority WG chairs currently have to block documents based on quality criteria. -or- (2) What level authority WG chairs should have to block documents based on quality criteria. _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 9 17:36:21 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA24646 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 17:36:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af5EP-0002ss-O3 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:35:54 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i09MZrUD011080 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 17:35:53 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af5EP-0002sd-J0 for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:35:53 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA24611 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 17:35:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af5EN-0000Gu-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:35:51 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af5CT-0000CA-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:33:54 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af5Ae-00004w-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:32:00 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af5Af-0002mX-BA; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:32:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af5Ac-0002mM-PF for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:31:58 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA24363 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 17:31:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af5Aa-00004D-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:31:56 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af58f-0007cG-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:29:58 -0500 Received: from sj-iport-3-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.72] helo=sj-iport-3.cisco.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af56i-0007Dh-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:27:56 -0500 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (171.71.177.254) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 09 Jan 2004 14:29:13 +0000 Received: from mira-sjc5-c.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@mira-sjc5-c.cisco.com [171.71.163.17]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i09MRNVM006830; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 14:27:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from cisco.com (sjc-vpn1-1015.cisco.com [10.21.99.247]) by mira-sjc5-c.cisco.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.3.6-GR) with ESMTP id APT42463; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 14:27:21 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 17:27:19 -0500 Subject: Re: [mpowr] SUMMARY: Mailing List Management Discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v553) Cc: "Alex Rousskov" , To: "James Kempf" From: Melinda Shore In-Reply-To: <020601c3d6fe$9a5513d0$606015ac@dclkempt40> Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.553) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,EXCUSE_3 autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Friday, January 9, 2004, at 05:19 PM, James Kempf wrote: > Concensus is a process that involves not only people forming opinions > but > also communicating them in a group setting. If the ability to > communicate is > disrupted, the concensus process is disrupted. Bingo. If things get so bad that someone needs to be removed from the mailing list to get back on track, the process is not working and cannot be used to fix itself. Defining, even informally, a mechanism for repairing the process is very worthwhile. Melinda _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 9 17:50:48 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA25568 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 17:50:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af5SO-0003tG-Ta for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:50:21 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i09MoK6E014948 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 17:50:20 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af5SO-0003t1-Nv for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:50:20 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA25546 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 17:50:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af5SM-0001Ww-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:50:18 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af5Qx-0001O6-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:48:52 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af5PH-0001AI-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:47:08 -0500 Received: from optimus22.ietf.org ([132.151.6.22] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1Af5PH-0002QM-4o for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:47:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af5P9-0003cg-Nl; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:46:59 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af5OH-0003bQ-Nu for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:46:05 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA25140 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 17:46:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af5OF-0000ze-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:46:03 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af5MQ-0000oP-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:44:11 -0500 Received: from measurement-factory.com ([206.168.0.5]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af5Ki-0000cW-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:42:24 -0500 Received: from measurement-factory.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i09MgIk3077798; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 15:42:18 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Received: (from rousskov@localhost) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i09MgIZs077797; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 15:42:18 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rousskov) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 15:42:18 -0700 (MST) From: Alex Rousskov To: Melinda Shore cc: James Kempf , mpowr@ietf.org In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [mpowr] Gauging consensus during disruptions Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,EXCUSE_3 autolearn=no version=2.60 -- was: Re: [mpowr] SUMMARY: Mailing List Management Discussion On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Melinda Shore wrote: > On Friday, January 9, 2004, at 05:19 PM, James Kempf wrote: > > > Concensus is a process that involves not only people forming > > opinions but also communicating them in a group setting. If the > > ability to communicate is disrupted, the concensus process is > > disrupted. > > Bingo. If things get so bad that someone needs to be removed from > the mailing list to get back on track, the process is not working > and cannot be used to fix itself. Defining, even informally, a > mechanism for repairing the process is very worthwhile. Sure, but is not the point we are discussing here, I think. Let me try to clarify. I am asserting that the Chair must _always_ represent what she thinks the WG rough consensus is. It does not matter whether the mailing list is being disrupted, not functioning at all, or the IETF web site is down. All those disruptions make Chairs gauging work more difficult and more risky, but still the Chair should not do Foo if she thinks that WG rough consensus would be against Foo. All WG Chair actions should imply the following template: "I gauge WG rough consensus as Foo. Therefore, I do X." Under no circumstances (even if the mailing list is not working at all or whatever), the Chair should use the following template: "I believe X is the right thing to do. Therefore, I do X, regardless of what I gauge WG rough consensus to be" This is a fundamental principle used by the rules I posted. Hope this clarifies, Alex. _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 9 17:52:58 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA25730 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 17:52:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af5UU-0003yz-Gu for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:52:31 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i09MqUwO015303 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 17:52:30 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af5UU-0003yk-Cd for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:52:30 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA25708 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 17:52:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af5UR-0001kY-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:52:28 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af5Sg-0001aT-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:50:38 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af5RP-0001QB-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:49:19 -0500 Received: from optimus22.ietf.org ([132.151.6.22] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1Af5RP-0002en-7l for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:49:19 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af5R9-0003o5-A8; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:49:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af5QY-0003iF-3t for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:48:26 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA25316 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 17:48:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af5QV-0001J8-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:48:23 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af5Ol-00015J-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:46:36 -0500 Received: from 216-43-25-66.ip.mcleodusa.net ([216.43.25.66] helo=episteme-software.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af5NN-0000t5-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:45:09 -0500 Received: from [216.43.25.67] (216.43.25.67) by episteme-software.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server X 3.2.3b3); Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:44:36 -0600 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: resnick@resnick1.qualcomm.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.2.20040109084557.044db960@ms101.mail1.com> X-Mailer: Eudora [Macintosh version 6.1a7] Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:44:34 -0600 To: Alex Rousskov From: Pete Resnick Subject: Re: [mpowr] SUMMARY: Further Work on WG (chair) Roles -- MPOWR WG Proposal Cc: Margaret Wasserman , mpowr@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,FORGED_MUA_EUDORA autolearn=no version=2.60 On 1/9/04 at 1:34 PM -0700, Alex Rousskov wrote: >On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Margaret Wasserman wrote: > >> This discussion can be loosely categorized into three separate >> sub-discussions: >> >> (1) Should we form a WG to move some responsibility >> and authority from the IESG to WGs or WG chairs? >> (2) Does it make sense to give WG chairs more document >> shepherding responsibility, and if so what is the >> best way to do that? >> (3) Should WG chairs have the authority to block >> documents due to low technical quality, >> insufficient review, etc.? > >It would be nice if you could replace "WG chairs" with "WG" in all of >the above items when categorizing. There was no consensus whether WG >Chair should be the object of these changes or the WG as a whole. >Let's stick with a more general case (WG as a whole) for now and >decide on Chair/author/participant role at the next level of detail. >This approach will prevent people like me from objecting to your >categorization itself as a starting point. #1 already talks about "WGs or WG chairs", so it seems you're only talking about #2 and #3. Replacing "WG chairs" with WG in #3 makes no sense: Of course a WG can stop a document in the current procedures. So (unless I'm mistaken), you only care about changing the words in #2. Correct? If so, let's drop this discussion here and talk about it in the summary of shepherding. Otherwise, please explain. pr -- Pete Resnick QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102 _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 9 18:00:36 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA26166 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 18:00:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af5br-0004HX-PF for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:00:07 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i09N07bx016442 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 18:00:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af5bp-0004Gc-Ok for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:00:05 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA26109 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 18:00:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af5bm-0002Jo-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:00:02 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af5Zz-0002DZ-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:58:12 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af5Yw-00027J-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:57:07 -0500 Received: from optimus22.ietf.org ([132.151.6.22] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1Af5Yx-0003Up-2E for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:57:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af5Yt-0004B7-8j; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:57:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af5YA-000496-Rm for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:56:18 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA25956 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 17:56:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af5Y8-00025h-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:56:16 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af5Wc-0001yQ-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:54:43 -0500 Received: from sj-iport-1-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.70] helo=sj-iport-1.cisco.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af5VF-0001nW-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:53:18 -0500 Received: from mira-sjc5-c.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@mira-sjc5-c.cisco.com [171.71.163.17]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i09MqhVM004430; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 14:52:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from cisco.com (sjc-vpn1-1015.cisco.com [10.21.99.247]) by mira-sjc5-c.cisco.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.3.6-GR) with ESMTP id APT45358; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 14:52:41 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 17:52:39 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v553) Cc: James Kempf , mpowr@ietf.org To: Alex Rousskov From: Melinda Shore In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <8657C180-42F6-11D8-AFFF-000A95E35274@cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.553) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [mpowr] Re: Gauging consensus during disruptions Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Friday, January 9, 2004, at 05:42 PM, Alex Rousskov wrote: > Let me try to clarify. I am asserting that the Chair must _always_ > represent what she thinks the WG rough consensus is. It does not > matter whether the mailing list is being disrupted, not functioning at > all, or the IETF web site is down. Sure it does. If you've been through one of these things you know that you cannot have the discussion required to determine consensus. I think that this is one of those rare cases where you have to trust your chair and know that there's an appeals process if the chair really is behaving arbitrarily. Melinda _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 9 18:12:28 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA27750 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 18:12:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af5nN-0004sJ-DD for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:12:01 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i09NC1ud018733 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 18:12:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af5nN-0004s4-7X for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:12:01 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA27673 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 18:11:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af5nK-0003Ep-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:11:58 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af5lo-00037z-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:10:25 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af5kR-0002wM-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:08:59 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af5kT-0004lz-Ar; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:09:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af5jV-0004kD-Aj for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:08:01 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA26932 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 18:07:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af5jS-0002mV-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:07:58 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af5hW-0002cg-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:05:59 -0500 Received: from joy.songbird.com ([208.184.79.7]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af5gM-0002Xi-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:04:46 -0500 Received: from bbprime (jay.songbird.com [208.184.79.253]) by joy.songbird.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id i09NBgc06594; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 15:11:42 -0800 From: Dave Crocker To: , Alex Rousskov CC: X-Mailer: PocoMail 3.03 (1740) - EVALUATION VERSION X-URL: http://www.pocomail.com/ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 15:03:57 -0800 Message-ID: <20041915357.860296@bbprime> In-Reply-To: <8657C180-42F6-11D8-AFFF-000A95E35274@cisco.com> Subject: Re: [mpowr] Re: Gauging consensus during disruptions Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Folks, > Sure it does. If you've been through one of these things you > know that you cannot have the discussion required to determine > consensus. I think that this is one of those rare cases where > you have to trust your chair and know that there's an appeals > process if the chair really is behaving arbitrarily. I hope that my oft-stated concerns about individuals being given "authority" which permits individual abuse provides some contrast to the fact that I entirely agree with Melinda. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 9 18:12:29 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA27769 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 18:12:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af5nO-0004sl-PE for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:12:02 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i09NC2MB018761 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 18:12:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af5nO-0004sW-Ka for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:12:02 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA27685 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 18:11:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af5nL-0003F4-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:12:00 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af5lq-00038N-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:10:27 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af5kR-0002wS-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:08:59 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af5kT-0004mi-U1; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:09:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af5k0-0004lW-DZ for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:08:32 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA27050 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 18:08:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af5jx-0002rg-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:08:29 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af5hz-0002hH-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:06:27 -0500 Received: from measurement-factory.com ([206.168.0.5]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af5hD-0002Z5-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:05:39 -0500 Received: from measurement-factory.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i09N5ck3078573; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:05:38 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Received: (from rousskov@localhost) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i09N5cS7078572; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:05:38 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rousskov) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:05:38 -0700 (MST) From: Alex Rousskov To: Pete Resnick cc: Margaret Wasserman , mpowr@ietf.org In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <5.1.0.14.2.20040109084557.044db960@ms101.mail1.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [mpowr] WGs or WG chairs Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 -- Was [mpowr] SUMMARY: Further Work on WG (chair) Roles -- MPOWR WG Proposal On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Pete Resnick wrote: > #1 already talks about "WGs or WG chairs", so it seems you're only > talking about #2 and #3. Replacing "WG chairs" with WG in #3 makes > no sense: Of course a WG can stop a document in the current > procedures. My understanding is that WG cannot stop a document if IESG wants to publish it. WG does not have the power to stop IESG from making a change and then publishing a document with that change. However, you are probably thinking of pre-IESG decisions here. > So (unless I'm mistaken), you only care about changing the words in > #2. Correct? If so, let's drop this discussion here and talk about > it in the summary of shepherding. OK. My point is that we should not start every discussion with "let's give WG Chair power to do X". We should start every discussion with "let's give WG power to do X" and only after there is consensus about that we should discuss how WG can use/express that power (via Chairs, authors, appointed representatives, automated means, etc.). Alex. _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 9 18:24:26 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA28624 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 18:24:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af5yw-00056r-EB for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:23:58 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i09NNwBx019635 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 18:23:58 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af5yw-00056c-8i for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:23:58 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA28618 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 18:23:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af5yt-0003tW-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:23:55 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af5xK-0003qE-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:22:19 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af5w4-0003jb-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:21:00 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af5w6-00053I-C3; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:21:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af5vE-00051w-73 for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:20:08 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA28340 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 18:20:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af5vB-0003cg-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:20:05 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af5tD-0003UY-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:18:04 -0500 Received: from measurement-factory.com ([206.168.0.5]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af5sB-0003PK-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:16:59 -0500 Received: from measurement-factory.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i09NGtk3079129; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:16:55 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Received: (from rousskov@localhost) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i09NGt8Y079128; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:16:55 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rousskov) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:16:55 -0700 (MST) From: Alex Rousskov To: Melinda Shore cc: James Kempf , mpowr@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <8657C180-42F6-11D8-AFFF-000A95E35274@cisco.com> Message-ID: References: <8657C180-42F6-11D8-AFFF-000A95E35274@cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [mpowr] Re: Gauging consensus during disruptions Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Melinda Shore wrote: > On Friday, January 9, 2004, at 05:42 PM, Alex Rousskov wrote: > > Let me try to clarify. I am asserting that the Chair must _always_ > > represent what she thinks the WG rough consensus is. It does not > > matter whether the mailing list is being disrupted, not functioning at > > all, or the IETF web site is down. > > Sure it does. If you've been through one of these things you > know that you cannot have the discussion required to determine > consensus. I think that this is one of those rare cases where > you have to trust your chair and know that there's an appeals > process if the chair really is behaving arbitrarily. Sure it does not. If you've been through one of these things you know that you cannot have any discussion at all, and you know that WG participants want to discuss technical matters. Hence, it is reasonable for Chair to declare a rough consensus that the work is being disrupted and the situation is out of control. That is, it is reasonable to assume that, given a filtered medium, Chair's declaration of rough consensus would have been supported. BTW, this is related to the "silent consensus" thread. In that thread, some argued that no quorum or voices are needed to declare consensus. This is a similar situation because the Chair assumes that no voices can be _heard_ because of the disruptions. Can a Chair _declare_ or _formulate_ consensus in the presence of noisy input? Yes. Chairs do that all the time. Alex. _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 9 18:30:22 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA28768 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 18:30:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af64i-0005Oh-8o for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:29:56 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i09NTuUZ020742 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 18:29:56 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af64i-0005OR-1R for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:29:56 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA28740 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 18:29:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af64f-000477-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:29:53 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af62m-00042m-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:27:57 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af60v-0003zP-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:26:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af60w-000597-Ou; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:26:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af60q-00058N-9A for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:25:56 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA28665 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 18:25:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af60n-0003xt-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:25:53 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af5yz-0003ua-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:24:02 -0500 Received: from key1.docomolabs-usa.com ([216.98.102.225] helo=fridge.docomolabs-usa.com ident=fwuser) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af5xw-0003qf-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:22:56 -0500 Message-ID: <022e01c3d707$93343140$606015ac@dclkempt40> From: "James Kempf" To: , "Margaret Wasserman" References: <5.1.0.14.2.20040109150128.044e0e10@ms101.mail1.com> Subject: Re: [mpowr] SUMMARY: Give WG chairs authority to block documents? Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 15:23:22 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Margaret, This is a good summary of part of the discussion. However, I think the discussion has gone beyond what you've summarized, to include the entire quality control process. My own thinking on this has evolved in conversations with Pete, Dave, and both Alexes. I now agree with the contention that WG chairs should not have authority to block documents because spotting quality problems often requires a bit of distance from the technical work. Thus chairs are unlikely to have enough perspective to spot serious cross-area problems. The situation with software QA is analgous. However, there does need to be some kind relief from cross area review for the bulk of documents that the IESG now does and which are fairly routine. My understanding of where the discussion (which may have moved to the solutions list) was at is that a review board like SIRS or ARTS would do most of the reviews, and the IESG would only become involved if there was a dispute or if the technology under development was new or resulted in a deep change in existing technology. The WG would thus have primary responsibility to resolve quality issues identified by the review board, with the chairs co-ordinating, and most documents would be published without the whole IESG becoming involved. In case of a dispute, the IESG would arbitrate between the reviewers and the Working Group, and the document would be published when the disupte is resolved to the satisfaction of the IESG (just as now). In cases where the IESG chooses to do a review, the process would look exactly as now, except the WG chair would be expected to co-ordinate more actively during the phase in which quality issues identified in the IESG review are resolved as was identified in your previous SUMMARY email. In addition, reviews would be required earlier, to catch quality problems before they propagate and require extensive rework, and ADs would be expected to use reviews as a way of catching WGs that are drifting or not making progress to help get them back on track, or terminate them if attempts to help are not successful, more proactively than is currently the case. In summary, I think the discussion has uncovered how to reform the quality control process in a way that would preserve the principles of community based decision making and maintain the fairly strict vetting function that we have today, but also offload the bulk of the review process from the IESG to reduce their workload, rather than just the question of whether to give WG chairs authority to block drafts. Right now, I'm trying to write up my understanding of the group discussion (also taking some points from the ART and SIRS drafts) in a draft which I hope to have done shortly. jak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Margaret Wasserman" To: Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 2:17 PM Subject: [mpowr] SUMMARY: Give WG chairs authority to block documents? > > This message summarizes the third sub-discussion that we had > under the heading of the MPOWR WG Proposal: > > (3) Should WG chairs have the authority to block documents > due to low technical quality, insufficient review, etc.? > > This discussion took place under the MPOWR WG Proposal subject > and also under the subject "Quality Control and that nasty > A word". > > This discussion grew out of the discussion (mentioned in > earlier summaries) about the distinction between shifting more > responsibility to WG chairs and shifting more authority to > WG chairs. > > In particular, Pete Resnick thought that he heard many people > at the plenary say that giving WG chairs "the authority to say > no" was a really bad idea. > > In response, Dave Crocker indicated that the focus on authority > is misplaced. What we really need to do is foster more > collaboration. > > James Kempf pointed out that if we want chairs to be responsible > for making sure that documents are well-reviewed and that the > review comments are addressed, we will need to give them the > authority to hold documents until these criteria are met. > > Pete Resnick stated his opinion that chairs don't need more > authority to hold document in this case, and offered a definition > of consensus that would allow WG chairs to hold these documents > except in cases where the WG has specifically considered these > questions and does believe that sufficient review has been > obtained and the issues addressed. James disagreed that > chairs have this authority under the existing BCPs. > > A discussion ensued, the conclusion of which is that, although > WG chairs have broad authority to define and determine cosensus, > only ADs currently have the authority to hold a document > because the document has technical problems or design flaws. > > Dave Crocker pointed out that this is correct and appropriate. > The WG chair should never be able to overrule WG consensus. > > James Kempf commented that, in order for an early review system > to be effective, the comments need to be binding. In other > words, WGs need to be required to address them. James used > the analogy of a QA department in a software company. > > Pete Resnick pointed out that the IETF is a open, consensus- > driven organization and that this type of organization inherently > gives more responsibility to its leaders than authority. Some > discussion ensued about whether the IETF actually is a hierarchy > or not... > > Dave Crocker pointed out that in the IETF, the troops really > are in charge. Working groups have inherent power, whereas > WG chairs and ADs only have derived power. He later pointed > out that explicitly assigning authority to one agent implies > that the other agents do not have the responsibility. In other > words, if we may WG chairs responsible for document quality, > that implies that the WGs are not responsible for quality. > > In response, Alex Rousskov started a thread with the subject > "Troops vs.Superpower" which discussed the relative authority of > the IESG vs. WGs. This eventually led to Alex Conta and Robert > Snively making a suggestion to move all technical authority out > of the IESG. Alex Rousskov, James Kempf and Pekka Savola > disagreed, citing a lack of people willing to do completely > non-technical IETF work. Robert Snively suggested that this > could be addressed by making the IESG a paid secretariat > function. > > One useful take-away from this portion of the conversation > is that it is important, as we discuss making changes to > the responsibility/authority of different positions, to be > mindful of what motivates people to participate in the > IETF at each level. > > Alex Conta pointed that having WG chairs be involved in > the technical work of a WG can present a conflict of > interest. Pekka Savola pointed out that this is often > addressed by having more than one WG chair, so that no one > has to serve in the chair role for his own document. There > was some further discussion about how/if WG chairs should > be involved in the technical work of their WGs. > > Conclusions: > > I was unable to draw any firm conclusions from this portion > of the discussion, except that it is clear that we do not > have consensus among those involved in this discussion about > either: > > (1) What level authority WG chairs currently have to block > documents based on quality criteria. > > -or- > > (2) What level authority WG chairs should have to block > documents based on quality criteria. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > mpowr mailing list > mpowr@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr > _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 9 18:36:32 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA29064 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 18:36:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af6Af-0005fC-Rm for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:36:05 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i09Na5PV021764 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 18:36:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af6Af-0005ex-MM for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:36:05 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA29026 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 18:36:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af6Ac-0004Sr-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:36:02 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af68p-0004NX-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:34:11 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af67f-0004I5-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:32:59 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af67h-0005Zw-6U; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:33:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af66j-0005XY-95 for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:32:01 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA28819 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 18:31:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af66g-0004Eg-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:31:58 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af64p-00048x-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:30:03 -0500 Received: from key1.docomolabs-usa.com ([216.98.102.225] helo=fridge.docomolabs-usa.com ident=fwuser) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af63D-00044J-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:28:23 -0500 Message-ID: <024e01c3d708$54676bc0$606015ac@dclkempt40> From: "James Kempf" To: "Alex Rousskov" , "Melinda Shore" Cc: References: <8657C180-42F6-11D8-AFFF-000A95E35274@cisco.com> Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 15:28:47 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [mpowr] Re: Gauging consensus during disruptions Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Agree. jak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Melinda Shore" To: "Alex Rousskov" Cc: "James Kempf" ; Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 2:52 PM Subject: Re: Gauging consensus during disruptions > On Friday, January 9, 2004, at 05:42 PM, Alex Rousskov wrote: > > Let me try to clarify. I am asserting that the Chair must _always_ > > represent what she thinks the WG rough consensus is. It does not > > matter whether the mailing list is being disrupted, not functioning at > > all, or the IETF web site is down. > > Sure it does. If you've been through one of these things you > know that you cannot have the discussion required to determine > consensus. I think that this is one of those rare cases where > you have to trust your chair and know that there's an appeals > process if the chair really is behaving arbitrarily. > > Melinda > > _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 9 18:46:21 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA29498 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 18:46:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af6KB-0006RY-7B for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:45:55 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i09Njtii024762 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 18:45:55 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af6KB-0006RJ-1f for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:45:55 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA29430 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 18:45:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af6K8-0004yk-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:45:52 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af6ID-0004qq-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:43:54 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af6GM-0004kt-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:41:58 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af6GO-0006FQ-KD; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:42:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af6GK-0006Eq-7c for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:41:56 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA29280 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 18:41:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af6GH-0004jq-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:41:53 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af6EQ-0004ec-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:39:59 -0500 Received: from measurement-factory.com ([206.168.0.5]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af6D1-0004am-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:38:31 -0500 Received: from measurement-factory.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i09NcTk3079920; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:38:29 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Received: (from rousskov@localhost) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i09NcTuP079919; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:38:29 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rousskov) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:38:29 -0700 (MST) From: Alex Rousskov To: James Kempf cc: mpowr@ietf.org, Margaret Wasserman In-Reply-To: <022e01c3d707$93343140$606015ac@dclkempt40> Message-ID: References: <5.1.0.14.2.20040109150128.044e0e10@ms101.mail1.com> <022e01c3d707$93343140$606015ac@dclkempt40> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [mpowr] entire quality control process, not just Chair authority Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 -- was: Re: [mpowr] SUMMARY: Give WG chairs authority to block documents? On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, James Kempf wrote: > This is a good summary of part of the discussion. However, I think > the discussion has gone beyond what you've summarized, to include > the entire quality control process. I agree. One more case in point why these soon-to-be-forced-into-existence working groups and IESG teams are too narrow and too interdependent to make useful work without bumping into each other. > My understanding of where the discussion (which may have moved to > the solutions list) was at is that a review board like SIRS or ARTS > would do most of the reviews, and the IESG would only become > involved if there was a dispute or if the technology under > development was new or resulted in a deep change in existing > technology. The WG would thus have primary responsibility to resolve > quality issues identified by the review board, with the chairs > co-ordinating, and most documents would be published without the > whole IESG becoming involved. In case of a dispute, the IESG would > arbitrate between the reviewers and the Working Group, and the > document would be published when the disupte is resolved to the > satisfaction of the IESG (just as now). I agree with the above. > In cases where the IESG chooses to do a review, the process would > look exactly as now, except the WG chair would be expected to > co-ordinate more actively during the phase in which quality issues > identified in the IESG review are resolved as was identified in your > previous SUMMARY email. I am not sure that "exactly as now" is the consensus here. Some may want to see changes to the current IESG review procedure, going beyond "WG would be expected to do more co-ordination" polishing. > Right now, I'm trying to write up my understanding of the group > discussion (also taking some points from the ART and SIRS drafts) in > a draft which I hope to have done shortly. Great! I hope you post your draft for discussion on Solutions rather MPOWR, ICAR, and/or PROTO. ;-) Alex. _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 9 18:48:24 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA29585 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 18:48:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af6M9-0006V2-O2 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:47:58 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i09Nlvf5024978 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 18:47:57 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af6M9-0006Un-J0 for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:47:57 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA29534 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 18:47:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af6M6-00055Y-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:47:54 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af6KP-00051p-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:46:10 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af6JH-0004wQ-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:44:59 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af6JJ-0006Pl-Sv; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:45:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af6IO-0006Nx-ID for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:44:04 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA29374 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 18:44:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af6IL-0004sE-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:44:01 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af6GV-0004mS-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:42:08 -0500 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([158.38.152.233]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af6F3-0004fx-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:40:38 -0500 Received: from halvestr-w2k1 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40E6061BEE; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:40:05 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:25:50 -0800 From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand To: Pekka Savola Cc: mpowr@ietf.org Message-ID: <2089172591.1073661950@localhost> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.1.0 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [mpowr] Experiment design Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit When I think of running an experiment, I think of something like: - Define the ruleset we want to test - Declare that from March 1(?), in all WGs with the first letter from A to K, the new ruleset applies; in WGs from L to Z, the old rule of IESG decision applies. - At the end of 3 (or 6) months, the WG chairs get asked: - Did you remove anyone from the list? - Was there a time when you wanted to remove a person from the list, but did not? - Was there a time when you removed someone from the list, and afterwards decided that you made the wrong decision? That should give us some real data - or some real data saying that this isn't a problem...... _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 9 19:06:48 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA00722 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 19:06:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af6dy-0007BX-BN for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 19:06:22 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i0A06MVb027613 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 19:06:22 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af6dy-0007BI-7T for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 19:06:22 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA00717 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 19:06:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af6de-0006UQ-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 19:06:03 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af6c1-0006PT-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 19:04:22 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af6ah-0006IC-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 19:02:59 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af6aj-00077n-Fz; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 19:03:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af6a6-00075h-7S for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 19:02:22 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA00547 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 19:02:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af6a3-0006Fw-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 19:02:19 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af6YU-00067o-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 19:00:43 -0500 Received: from measurement-factory.com ([206.168.0.5]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af6Ww-0005yC-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:59:06 -0500 Received: from measurement-factory.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i09Nx4k3080670; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:59:04 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Received: (from rousskov@localhost) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i09Nx4xL080669; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:59:04 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rousskov) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:59:04 -0700 (MST) From: Alex Rousskov To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand cc: mpowr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [mpowr] Experiment design In-Reply-To: <2089172591.1073661950@localhost> Message-ID: References: <2089172591.1073661950@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: > When I think of running an experiment, I think of something like: > > - Define the ruleset we want to test > - Declare that from March 1(?), in all WGs with the first letter from A to > K, the new ruleset applies; in WGs from L to Z, the old rule of IESG > decision applies. > - At the end of 3 (or 6) months, the WG chairs get asked: > - Did you remove anyone from the list? > - Was there a time when you wanted to remove a person from the > list, but did not? > - Was there a time when you removed someone from the list, and > afterwards decided that you made the wrong decision? > > That should give us some real data - or some real data saying that this > isn't a problem...... The only measurable indication of a problem would be a large number of successful(?) appeals. No experiment is required to notice that and suspend/adjust new rules. The above questions and the answers to the above questions can be interpreted and manipulated in many ways and, hence, they are real noise and not real data. You may even distort the results by running the experiment. It may look like a double blind study, but it is not because the subjects know whether they were given a placebo and because the subjects may want the real thing instead. Alex. _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 9 19:46:32 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA02158 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 19:46:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af7GM-0000fV-49 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 19:46:02 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i0A0k2w2002563 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 19:46:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af7GL-0000fG-VT for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 19:46:02 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA02141 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 19:45:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af7GK-00010A-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 19:46:00 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af7Ea-0000vM-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 19:44:12 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af7DQ-0000pH-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 19:43:00 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af7DR-0000ZO-CS; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 19:43:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af7Cc-0000Y4-20 for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 19:42:10 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA02013 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 19:42:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af7Ca-0000nj-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 19:42:08 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af7Aj-0000iG-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 19:40:14 -0500 Received: from key1.docomolabs-usa.com ([216.98.102.225] helo=fridge.docomolabs-usa.com ident=fwuser) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af7AA-0000by-00; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 19:39:38 -0500 Message-ID: <029201c3d712$48293870$606015ac@dclkempt40> From: "James Kempf" To: , "MPowr" , Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:40:01 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [mpowr] Summary of Discussion on Reforming IETF Quality Control Process Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I've written a draft summarizing the discussions on reforming the IETF quality control process that started on mpowr in December and wandered to solutions in January. It's here: http://www.geocities.com/kempf42/draft-list-quality-control-00.txt I am not exactly sure what to do with the draft at this point, but would be interested in hearing feedback. There has been a preference expressed for discussing the issue on solutions rather than on either mpowr or icar, but I'm on all three lists and I'll try to respond as time allows. I'd also be interested in hearing suggestions about how to proceed. If this doesn't look like a valuable activity, we should apply the procedure described in the draft and terminate it early. :-) jak _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 9 20:44:29 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA04620 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 20:44:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af8AS-0002U9-U0 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 20:44:01 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i0A1i0lw009547 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 20:44:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af8AS-0002Tu-Q4 for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 20:44:00 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA04600 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 20:43:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af8AQ-0003rV-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 20:43:58 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af88b-0003nA-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 20:42:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af87Y-0003iq-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 20:41:00 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af87Z-0002PO-Ll; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 20:41:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af86e-0002Nc-8a for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 20:40:04 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA04474 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 20:40:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af86b-0003gh-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 20:40:02 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af84m-0003bu-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 20:38:09 -0500 Received: from smtp.exodus.net ([66.35.230.236]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af83C-0003Vn-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 20:36:30 -0500 Received: from ms101.mail1.com (ms101.mail1.com [209.1.5.174]) by smtp.exodus.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0A3Fqw3006439 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 19:15:52 -0800 Received: from ala-mrwtemp.thingmagic.com (unverified [24.61.30.237]) by accounting.espmail.com (Rockliffe SMTPRA 5.2.5) with ESMTP id ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 17:35:59 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040109202017.044b4360@ms101.mail1.com> X-Sender: margaret@thingmagic.com@ms101.mail1.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 20:24:51 -0500 To: "James Kempf" From: Margaret Wasserman Subject: Re: [mpowr] SUMMARY: Give WG chairs authority to block documents? Cc: In-Reply-To: <022e01c3d707$93343140$606015ac@dclkempt40> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20040109150128.044e0e10@ms101.mail1.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Hi James, >This is a good summary of part of the discussion. However, I think the >discussion has gone beyond what you've summarized, to include the entire >quality control process. I understand that there are related discussions taking place on the 'solutions' list... I'm reading them, in fact. But, I tried to restrict my summary to discussions that actually took place on this list... Harald is responsible for the 'solutions' list, so he should (draft someone to) summarize the discussion there if he believes it would be useful to do so. >Right now, I'm trying to write up my understanding of the group discussion >(also taking some points from the ART and SIRS drafts) in a draft which I >hope to have done shortly. That's great. I'd like to see a proposal. I have some concerns about the changes that are being proposed on the 'solutions' list, but the proposal is moving fast enough that it is hard to do any real analysis of the ideas. Margaret _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 9 20:54:30 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA05019 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 20:54:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af8KA-0002nA-76 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 20:54:02 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i0A1s247010726 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 20:54:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af8KA-0002mv-2V for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 20:54:02 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA05005 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 20:53:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af8K7-0004Qx-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 20:53:59 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af8IL-0004NP-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 20:52:09 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af8HE-0004Iq-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 20:51:00 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af8HG-0002di-A4; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 20:51:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af8GK-0002a6-0P for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 20:50:04 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA04888 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 20:50:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af8GH-0004Gy-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 20:50:01 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af8EZ-0004BJ-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 20:48:15 -0500 Received: from smtp.exodus.net ([66.35.230.236]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af8Cs-0003yg-00; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 20:46:30 -0500 Received: from ms101.mail1.com (ms101.mail1.com [209.1.5.174]) by smtp.exodus.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0A3Prw3006651; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 19:25:53 -0800 Received: from ala-mrwtemp.thingmagic.com (unverified [24.61.30.237]) by accounting.espmail.com (Rockliffe SMTPRA 5.2.5) with ESMTP id ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 17:46:00 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040109203410.04552a28@ms101.mail1.com> X-Sender: margaret@thingmagic.com@ms101.mail1.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 20:41:09 -0500 To: "James Kempf" From: Margaret Wasserman Cc: , "MPowr" , In-Reply-To: <029201c3d712$48293870$606015ac@dclkempt40> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [mpowr] Re: [Solutions] Summary of Discussion on Reforming IETF Quality Control Process Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Hi James, I just read your proposal. Thanks for posting it. Although I may have more detailed questions later, I have a couple of quick clarification questions now... What are the criteria for deciding whether a particular document requires full IESG review? And, when would this be decided -- at charter time, when the document is accepted as a WG item, during WG Last Call, when the shepherding AD reviews the status of the document, or at some other time? In dispute resolution, you seem to indicate that the shepherding AD will take all disputes to the full IESG. Currently, the shepherding AD (or two ADs in an area) make an attempt to resolve any dispute before it is brought to the full IESG. Is it your intention to change that? Do you have any sort of transition plan for how we could move to this approach? Are there useful experiments that we could run to see if it would work? Margaret At 04:40 PM 1/9/2004 -0800, James Kempf wrote: >I've written a draft summarizing the discussions on reforming the IETF >quality control process that started on mpowr in December and wandered to >solutions in January. It's here: > >http://www.geocities.com/kempf42/draft-list-quality-control-00.txt > >I am not exactly sure what to do with the draft at this point, but would be >interested in hearing feedback. There has been a preference expressed for >discussing the issue on solutions rather than on either mpowr or icar, but >I'm on all three lists and I'll try to respond as time allows. I'd also be >interested in hearing suggestions about how to proceed. If this doesn't look >like a valuable activity, we should apply the procedure described in the >draft and terminate it early. :-) > > jak > >_______________________________________________ >Solutions mailing list >Solutions@alvestrand.no >http://eikenes.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/solutions _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 9 21:02:29 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA05200 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 21:02:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af8Rt-00039L-1c for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 21:02:01 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i0A221UY012101 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 21:02:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af8Rs-000396-Tm for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 21:02:00 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA05173 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 21:01:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af8Rq-0004jv-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 21:01:58 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af8Q0-0004fm-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 21:00:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af8Ox-0004bk-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 20:58:59 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af8Oz-00033L-32; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 20:59:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Af8O7-000320-Gj for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 20:58:07 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA05108 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 20:58:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af8O5-0004bC-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 20:58:05 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Af8MA-0004X6-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 20:56:07 -0500 Received: from smtp.exodus.net ([66.35.230.237] helo=smtp02-w.exodus.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Af8Ll-0004SZ-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 20:55:41 -0500 Received: from ms101.mail1.com (ms101.mail1.com [209.1.5.174]) by smtp02-w.exodus.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i09N5tEv007521 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 17:05:55 -0600 Received: from ala-mrwtemp.thingmagic.com (unverified [24.61.30.237]) by accounting.espmail.com (Rockliffe SMTPRA 5.2.5) with ESMTP id ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 17:55:11 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040109165451.044f8e38@ms101.mail1.com> X-Sender: margaret@thingmagic.com@ms101.mail1.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 20:53:19 -0500 To: Alex Rousskov From: Margaret Wasserman Cc: mpowr@ietf.org In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.2.20040109142330.044f8e38@ms101.mail1.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20040109142330.044f8e38@ms101.mail1.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [mpowr] Request for clarifications on my opinion of consensus Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Hi Alex, > (a) Before gauging consensus, please define shepherding. > Otherwise, people may be agreeing to something they > will be surprised by later. The discussion referred to "shepherding documents". Pete Resnick also mentioned some specific aspects of document shepherding, such as getting expert review, doing the write-up, tracking outstanding issues. The slides from the plenary presentation that spawned this forum refer to shepherding documents through the later stages of the document process (after the current WG -> AD hand-off) including doing ballot write-ups, tracking AD review and IESG review comments and getting them resolved, dealing with IANA and RFC editor issues. Currently ADs do all of these things, in addition to doing the actual reviews (both AD review and IESG review). > (b) Could you gauge consensus using the "WG" or > "WG representative" wording instead of a "WG chair" > wording? I agree that the WG should be more involved > in some stages of the review, but I am not ready > to assign that responsibility to Chairs. I would feel uncomfortable saying that we have consensus about moving this responsibility to "WGs" or "WG representative" because the discussion we had specifically talked about WG chairs. I do acknowledge that you disagree with that formulation, though. > (c) We may be discussing a low-level procedure that > depends on the changes in IETF review process. > It seems to me that this discussion should be > postponed, and soon-to-be-forced-into-existence > ICAR WG should address the problem we are trying > to solve here. ICAR higher-level solutions may > remove the need for low-level tuning or may > require low-level tuning in a very different > environment. Yet another argument against > the premature micro-level segmentation of the Big > Picture effort! Maybe. But, IMO, holding off on all improvements until we complete an all-singing, all-dancing IETF reorganization would be a big mistake. IMO, what we have today mostly works, so we need to tune our organication and processes through a set of controlled, incremental changes. Your opinion may be different, of course. Margaret Margaret _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jan 10 00:12:34 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA09872 for ; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:12:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AfBPq-0000dH-4C for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:12:06 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i0A5C5PX002432 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:12:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AfBPp-0000d9-GN for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:12:05 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA09841 for ; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:12:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AfBPn-0005DO-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:12:03 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AfBNz-00059Q-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:10:12 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AfBMy-00054u-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:09:08 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AfBMu-0000ZI-1y; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:09:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AfBLu-0000Uo-Os for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:08:02 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA09683 for ; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:07:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AfBLs-00052U-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:08:00 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AfBK4-0004yu-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:06:08 -0500 Received: from key1.docomolabs-usa.com ([216.98.102.225] helo=fridge.docomolabs-usa.com ident=fwuser) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AfBIx-0004v7-00; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:05:00 -0500 Message-ID: <003701c3d737$5b361530$386015ac@dclkempt40> From: "James Kempf" To: "Margaret Wasserman" Cc: , "MPowr" , References: <5.1.0.14.2.20040109203410.04552a28@ms101.mail1.com> Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 21:05:24 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [mpowr] Re: [Solutions] Summary of Discussion on Reforming IETF Quality Control Process Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Margaret, That was quick! Here are a couple of quick answers, but if you think this draft might have legs, I'll get an issues page up on it. > What are the criteria for deciding whether a particular document > requires full IESG review? It is up to the IESG to decide that. The WG can ask for a full review if they think it might be necessary, but the IESG makes the decision. Also, the shepherding AD can ask for a full review if s(he) thinks its necessary. In general, I think the IESG would want to review drafts from WGs that are proposing new technology or major changes in old technology, but I did not think it would be such a good idea to be that explicit because it would decrease the attractiveness of serving on the review board, and, as a practical matter, the IESG may want at some point to have the review board do a review on some draft that proposes new technology if it's a small change or a major change in old technology if it isn't all the different or if the WG is composed of people who are known to be reliable and world class experts in the field. >And, when would this be decided -- at > charter time, when the document is accepted as a WG item, during > WG Last Call, when the shepherding AD reviews the status of the > document, or at some other time? > In the normal case, as soon as the draft showed up as a work item on the WG's goals list, which is what the process draft should say because some WG drafts are added after the charter has been written. A review would have to be done before the draft became a WG draft in any case. The idea here is to inject a note of predictability into the review process, so the chair, WG, and shepherding AD know exactly what to do when the time comes for the review. However, in exceptional cases, typically when the shepherding AD has detected that the WG is off track or has reason to believe that the solutions being discussed by the WG may be impractical or otherwise flawed, the shepherding AD can call for a review and include an IESG review of documents, if talking with the WG fails to reorient the WG. > In dispute resolution, you seem to indicate that the shepherding > AD will take all disputes to the full IESG. Currently, the > shepherding AD (or two ADs in an area) make an attempt to resolve > any dispute before it is brought to the full IESG. Is it your > intention to change that? > Yes, I believe that is probably a better idea and I will add that to the document. No reason for full IESG intervention if the WG and reviewers can come to an accommodation with the AD's help. > Do you have any sort of transition plan for how we could move > to this approach? Are there useful experiments that we could > run to see if it would work? > One way to start would be to pick a few WGs and give it a try. The list of SIRS are obvious candidates for initial Reviewers. Obviously, if the process is applied to some WGs that exist initially, they will not be able to set up the review process when they are initially formed. I'd say picking groups such as DHC where many of the drafts involve proposals for new options or other small changes would be one way to test the review board process, I'm not sure which ones would be appropriate for the new/deeply changed technology case. The experiment could be run for, say, a year and closely monitored to see how much work it really did eliminate for the IESG and whether it really did free up more time for ADs to spend working with their WGs, then tuned as appropriate or even discarded if it isn't working. jak _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jan 10 00:52:26 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA11145 for ; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:52:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AfC2Q-0001c7-VE for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:51:59 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i0A5pw5d006197 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:51:58 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AfC2Q-0001bs-Pn for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:51:58 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA11077 for ; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:51:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AfC2O-0007EN-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:51:56 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AfC0S-00079G-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:49:57 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AfByY-000756-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:47:58 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AfBya-0001X1-VV; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:48:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AfByZ-0001Wd-3R for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:47:59 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA10991 for ; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:47:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AfByW-00074b-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:47:56 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AfBwc-0006zz-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:45:58 -0500 Received: from measurement-factory.com ([206.168.0.5]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AfBuh-0006tJ-00; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:44:00 -0500 Received: from measurement-factory.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i0A5hvk3094168; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 22:43:57 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Received: (from rousskov@localhost) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i0A5hvoK094167; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 22:43:57 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rousskov) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 22:43:57 -0700 (MST) From: Alex Rousskov To: James Kempf cc: Margaret Wasserman , MPowr , icar@ietf.org, solutions@alvestrand.no In-Reply-To: <003701c3d737$5b361530$386015ac@dclkempt40> Message-ID: References: <5.1.0.14.2.20040109203410.04552a28@ms101.mail1.com> <003701c3d737$5b361530$386015ac@dclkempt40> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [mpowr] Re: [Solutions] Summary of Discussion on Reforming IETF Quality Control Process Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, James Kempf wrote: > > What are the criteria for deciding whether a particular document > > requires full IESG review? > > It is up to the IESG to decide that. I want to clarify this because Margeret's question might be based on the wrong assumption, possibly causing misinterpretation of the correct answer. There should be no "requires full IESG review" flag or state for any document. IESG is not a special case when it comes to review. IESG or any single AD can submit a review for any document that is up for review, at any time. This is no different from any IETF participant submitting a review. If IESG feels that a particular document needs full IESG review, it is their internal business, invisible and unpredictable to others (in general), until they submit a review. In general, one does not know a priori whether a document will be reviewed by IESG until the IESG submits the review. Now, if there is a conflict that WG and a reviewer cannot resolve despite all the negotiation efforts, then the document automatically goes to IESG for the final conflict resolution. Such resolution may require full IESG review, but it is internal IESG business how to approach that. The final IESG decision is documented, of course. Note that "a reviewer" above may be IESG (but it is not a special case). Thus, IESG has special formal powers when it comes to conflict resolution, but does not have (and does not need!) any special powers or exceptions when it comes to document review. This scheme is both simple and gives IESG full flexibility when it comes to selecting "full IESG review" targets. We do not need to spend time documenting what those targets might be. Alex. _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jan 10 01:50:42 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA12519 for ; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 01:50:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AfCwm-0003e6-Gz for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 01:50:14 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i0A6oCT8014008 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 01:50:12 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AfCwm-0003dr-D6 for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 01:50:12 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA12511 for ; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 01:50:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AfCwj-0001rr-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 01:50:09 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AfCv0-0001nI-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 01:48:23 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AfCte-0001h5-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 01:46:58 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AfCtg-0003Wa-Ti; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 01:47:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AfCsm-0003VY-3c for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 01:46:04 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA12384 for ; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 01:46:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AfCsi-0001cy-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 01:46:00 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AfCqx-0001Yj-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 01:44:12 -0500 Received: from ns.execdsl.net ([208.184.15.238] helo=EXECDSL.COM) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AfCpo-0001Ts-00; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 01:43:00 -0500 Received: from [66.95.38.74] (HELO JLaptop.stevecrocker.com) by EXECDSL.COM (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.3) with ESMTP id 6063177; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 01:42:52 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20040110013737.018ef758@localhost> X-Sender: joel@stevecrocker.com@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 01:42:43 -0500 To: MPowr , icar@ietf.org, solutions@alvestrand.no From: "Joel M. Halpern" In-Reply-To: References: <003701c3d737$5b361530$386015ac@dclkempt40> <5.1.0.14.2.20040109203410.04552a28@ms101.mail1.com> <003701c3d737$5b361530$386015ac@dclkempt40> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [mpowr] Re: [Solutions] Summary of Discussion on Reforming IETF Quality Control Process Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 I may be missing something, but the problem I see reading this is that this gives the IESG no assistance in deciding which documents it needs to review. There was another proposal which I read to say ~the IESG needs to review documents for which there is disagreement about the results of other reviews.~ While one can argue about whether that is good or not, it at least spells out when the IESG needs to review a document, and when it does not need to. Obviously, if we can lighten the load enough that the IESG has time to review more than it needs to, that is great and they should do so. Equally, some IESG members will review some documents over and above such a "requirement", since they will be interested. But my understanding of one aspect of this discussion is to help replace the current ~the IESG must review everything~ with a useful alternative review procedure, and a useful definition of which things the IESG needs to review. (Among other things, such a reduction should help enable the necessary IESG reviews to occur in a more timely fashion.) The text below seems to say taht there are no documents the IESG needs to review. While it would be nice to arrive in such a state, I doubt we can get there in one jump. Yours, Joel M. Halpern PS: Can we pick one of the three lists for this? At 10:43 PM 1/9/2004 -0700, Alex Rousskov wrote: >There should be no "requires full IESG review" flag or state for any >document. IESG is not a special case when it comes to review. IESG or >any single AD can submit a review for any document that is up for >review, at any time. This is no different from any IETF participant >submitting a review. If IESG feels that a particular document needs >full IESG review, it is their internal business, invisible and >unpredictable to others (in general), until they submit a review. In >general, one does not know a priori whether a document will be >reviewed by IESG until the IESG submits the review. _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jan 10 01:52:35 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA12591 for ; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 01:52:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AfCyd-0003gL-OP for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 01:52:07 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i0A6q7qS014147 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 01:52:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AfCyd-0003g6-JQ for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 01:52:07 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA12567 for ; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 01:52:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AfCya-0001x5-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 01:52:04 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AfCwl-0001sI-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 01:50:11 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AfCvZ-0001nb-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 01:48:57 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AfCvc-0003ai-J3; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 01:49:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AfCul-0003Yj-Ut for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 01:48:08 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA12412 for ; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 01:48:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AfCui-0001kA-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 01:48:04 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AfCsm-0001di-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 01:46:05 -0500 Received: from netcore.fi ([193.94.160.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AfCr7-0001U5-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 01:44:21 -0500 Received: from localhost (pekkas@localhost) by netcore.fi (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i0A6hmD10047; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 08:43:49 +0200 Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 08:43:48 +0200 (EET) From: Pekka Savola To: Margaret Wasserman cc: mpowr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [mpowr] SUMMARY: Give WG chairs more shepherding responsibility? In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20040109142330.044f8e38@ms101.mail1.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Margaret Wasserman wrote: > There seems to be consensus amongst those who have participated > in the discussion that it would be good to give WG chairs more > responsibility for shepherding documents after they are sent to > the IESG for review. Yes, this makes a lot of sense. That helps a LOT when addressing the comments from the IESG review, for example. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jan 10 01:54:33 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA12645 for ; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 01:54:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AfD0X-0003iN-Iy for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 01:54:05 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i0A6s5lI014273 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 01:54:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AfD0X-0003i8-Di for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 01:54:05 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA12633 for ; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 01:54:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AfD0U-00021Y-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 01:54:02 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AfCyh-0001yL-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 01:52:12 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AfCxY-0001tu-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 01:51:00 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AfCxa-0003et-9A; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 01:51:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AfCwh-0003dR-OS for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 01:50:07 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA12502 for ; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 01:50:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AfCwe-0001r4-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 01:50:04 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AfCuq-0001lg-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 01:48:13 -0500 Received: from netcore.fi ([193.94.160.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AfCsw-0001aL-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 01:46:14 -0500 Received: from localhost (pekkas@localhost) by netcore.fi (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i0A6jf910077; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 08:45:41 +0200 Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 08:45:41 +0200 (EET) From: Pekka Savola To: Margaret Wasserman cc: mpowr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [mpowr] Utility of Summaries In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20040109164956.044d9f80@ms101.mail1.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Margaret Wasserman wrote: > I think that the mailing list summaries will be much more > useful if people try to avoid having discussions in threads > that start with the word "SUMMARY". Comments on the summaries > are okay -- in particular, I think it is good to mention any > mistakes that I've made within the "SUMMARY" thread. But, > please use a new subject line for discussions that are > spawned by the summaries. I have to disagree on that a bit. There are so many different threads going on that to keep sanity, you have to kind of read "one thread at a time". One way to do that is to filter by the subject line. This might not be an issue if the discussion of a summary thread had been concluded before posting the next one(s). -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jan 10 03:54:34 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA29634 for ; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 03:54:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AfEsf-00034h-Tw for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 03:54:06 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i0A8s5wC011820 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 03:54:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AfEsf-00034Z-2L for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 03:54:05 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA29619 for ; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 03:54:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AfEsc-0002Gw-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 03:54:02 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AfEqg-0002CP-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 03:52:03 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AfEpg-000298-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 03:51:00 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AfEph-0002ww-8y; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 03:51:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AfEok-0002vz-O2 for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 03:50:02 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA29579 for ; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 03:50:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AfEoi-00027A-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 03:50:00 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AfEms-00023M-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 03:48:07 -0500 Received: from netcore.fi ([193.94.160.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AfElY-0001yk-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 03:46:44 -0500 Received: from localhost (pekkas@localhost) by netcore.fi (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i0A8kEf11036; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 10:46:14 +0200 Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 10:46:14 +0200 (EET) From: Pekka Savola To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand cc: mpowr@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <2089172591.1073661950@localhost> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [mpowr] Re: Experiment design Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: > When I think of running an experiment, I think of something like: > > - Define the ruleset we want to test > - Declare that from March 1(?), in all WGs with the first letter from A to > K, the new ruleset applies; in WGs from L to Z, the old rule of IESG > decision applies. > - At the end of 3 (or 6) months, the WG chairs get asked: > - Did you remove anyone from the list? > - Was there a time when you wanted to remove a person from the > list, but did not? > - Was there a time when you removed someone from the list, and > afterwards decided that you made the wrong decision? > > That should give us some real data - or some real data saying that this > isn't a problem...... Sounds good to me, even though I'd inform the WG chairs before the experiment on what questions (or in general, what kind of information) will be asked of them later on, so that they can keep notes on the data (e.g., whether they wanted to remove someone, or why they did / did not do it) to be collected. The period would probably have to be at least 6 months (or the like). -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jan 10 12:00:47 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA10766 for ; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 12:00:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AfMTD-0006yU-W3 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 12:00:20 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i0AH0JBe026805 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 12:00:19 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AfMTD-0006yG-0u for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 12:00:19 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA10690 for ; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 12:00:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AfMT7-0001ZX-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 12:00:13 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AfMQo-0001A8-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 11:57:51 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AfMMN-0000mo-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 11:53:15 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AfMCT-0006Rn-5S; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 11:43:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AfMBW-0006RV-1A for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 11:42:07 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA10147 for ; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 11:41:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AfMBL-0000UA-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 11:41:51 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AfM7m-0000Nn-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 11:38:10 -0500 Received: from transfire.transwitch.com ([208.5.237.254] helo=pguin2.txc.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AfM35-0000Bk-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 11:33:19 -0500 Received: from txc.com ([172.18.253.135]) by pguin2.txc.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id i0AGWr012996; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 11:32:53 -0500 Message-ID: <40002933.1010505@txc.com> Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 11:32:51 -0500 From: Alex Conta User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031208 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Margaret Wasserman CC: mpowr@ietf.org Subject: clarifications Re: [mpowr] SUMMARY: Mailing List Management Discussion References: <5.1.0.14.2.20040109064121.0427f9f8@ms101.mail1.com> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20040109064121.0427f9f8@ms101.mail1.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="------------ms050608040509070005020502" Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format. --------------ms050608040509070005020502 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Margaret, For what is worth, here are some clarifications to your interpretation of my messages, and position. Please see bellow: Margaret Wasserman wrote: > > One of the subjects that we discussed in some depth on this > list is how/if a WG chair should be able to revoke the posting > privileges of disruptive mailing list participants. > [...]. > > Several people voiced support for the idea of allowing WG > chairs to revoke the posting privileges of disruptive > individuals, but had issues with James proposal and/or > did not comment on it specifically (Margaret Wasserman, > John Klensin, Spencer Dawkins, Harald Alvestrand, > Melinda Shore, Dave Crocker). > > One person made unambiguous statements against the idea > that WG chairs should be allowed to revoke the posting > privileges of disruptive individuals (Alex Conta). > "Disruptive" is quite vague, which is the a problem. Trying to narrow down the meaning: a) "Disruptive" because messages are completely outside the technical context of the WG mailing list? I would not defend posting rights for this type of messages. b) "Disruptive" because messages have a technical content that is in opposition to other opinions, including that of the chair? I am strongly defending posting rights for technical content messages. c)"Disruptive" because messages have a technical content mixed with "bad language"? I am not defending the users of bad languages. But this poses the problem of defining and gaging "bad language", in particular in the international environment of the IETF, where not everyone's first language is English. Messages of type a) are quite rare - I haven't seen them on lists that I've followed, some of these lists being active for many years. For b) and c), giving to the WG chairs the role of "gaging" the language, in the same time with the role of "shutting down" the sender, in the current context of roles, makes it a BIG problem, because the chair is allowed to be part of the technical debate/work. There are IMO two easy solutions to this BIG problem: 1) maintain the current situation, which is, do not put both the role of "shutting down" and "gaging" language into the WG chairs hands. 2) change the WG roles, by giving only process and people roles, and removing the technical role. Regards, Alex > There were several specific objections to James' proposal: > [...] > Margaret > > > > > ___________________________________________ > mpowr mailing list > mpowr@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr > > --------------ms050608040509070005020502 Content-Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIINqDCC A2IwggLLoAMCAQICEAvaCxfBP4mOqwl0erTOLjMwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQECBQAwXzELMAkGA1UE BhMCVVMxFzAVBgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMTcwNQYDVQQLEy5DbGFzcyAxIFB1Ymxp YyBQcmltYXJ5IENlcnRpZmljYXRpb24gQXV0aG9yaXR5MB4XDTk4MDUxMjAwMDAwMFoXDTA4 MDUxMjIzNTk1OVowgcwxFzAVBgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMR8wHQYDVQQLExZWZXJp U2lnbiBUcnVzdCBOZXR3b3JrMUYwRAYDVQQLEz13d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3JlcG9zaXRv cnkvUlBBIEluY29ycC4gQnkgUmVmLixMSUFCLkxURChjKTk4MUgwRgYDVQQDEz9WZXJpU2ln biBDbGFzcyAxIENBIEluZGl2aWR1YWwgU3Vic2NyaWJlci1QZXJzb25hIE5vdCBWYWxpZGF0 ZWQwgZ8wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADgY0AMIGJAoGBALtaRIoEFrtV/QN6ii2UTxV4NrgNSrJv nFS/vOh3Kp258Gi7ldkxQXB6gUu5SBNWLccI4YRCq8CikqtEXKpC8IIOAukv+8I7u77JJwpd trA2QjO1blSIT4dKvxna+RXoD4e2HOPMxpqOf2okkuP84GW6p7F+78nbN2rISsgJBuSZAgMB AAGjgbAwga0wDwYDVR0TBAgwBgEB/wIBADBHBgNVHSAEQDA+MDwGC2CGSAGG+EUBBwEBMC0w KwYIKwYBBQUHAgEWH3d3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcmVwb3NpdG9yeS9SUEEwMQYDVR0fBCow KDAmoCSgIoYgaHR0cDovL2NybC52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcGNhMS5jcmwwCwYDVR0PBAQDAgEG MBEGCWCGSAGG+EIBAQQEAwIBBjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQIFAAOBgQACfZ5vRUs4oLje6VNkIbzk TCuPHv6SQKzYCjlqoTIhLAebq1n+0mIafVU4sDdz3PQHZmNiveFTcFKH56jYUulbLarh3s+s MVTUixnI2COo7wQrMn0sGBzIfImoLnfyRNFlCk10te7TG5JzdC6JOzUTcudAMZrTssSr51a+ i+P7FTCCBR0wggSGoAMCAQICEAxYaM16ATcjBamVuftCOMIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEEBQAwgcwx FzAVBgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMR8wHQYDVQQLExZWZXJpU2lnbiBUcnVzdCBOZXR3 b3JrMUYwRAYDVQQLEz13d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3JlcG9zaXRvcnkvUlBBIEluY29ycC4g QnkgUmVmLixMSUFCLkxURChjKTk4MUgwRgYDVQQDEz9WZXJpU2lnbiBDbGFzcyAxIENBIElu ZGl2aWR1YWwgU3Vic2NyaWJlci1QZXJzb25hIE5vdCBWYWxpZGF0ZWQwHhcNMDMxMDA3MDAw MDAwWhcNMDQxMDA2MjM1OTU5WjCCAQsxFzAVBgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMR8wHQYD VQQLExZWZXJpU2lnbiBUcnVzdCBOZXR3b3JrMUYwRAYDVQQLEz13d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29t L3JlcG9zaXRvcnkvUlBBIEluY29ycC4gYnkgUmVmLixMSUFCLkxURChjKTk4MR4wHAYDVQQL ExVQZXJzb25hIE5vdCBWYWxpZGF0ZWQxMzAxBgNVBAsTKkRpZ2l0YWwgSUQgQ2xhc3MgMSAt IE5ldHNjYXBlIEZ1bGwgU2VydmljZTETMBEGA1UEAxQKQWxleCBDb250YTEdMBsGCSqGSIb3 DQEJARYOYWNvbnRhQHR4Yy5jb20wggEiMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4IBDwAwggEKAoIBAQC4 Ft6Hpfel8VTHHZ+/IL7CrN4JZuNiEG0jbHIdZ6p4fIhVYpLiSK57oEE8WooVkMCwJxbd1kja BR8eLKwmMatpnaW661HjOjZaZaWHuj1k+/I7ZKcPKHHk2V++wAz5lIrJEYXm5Swbqq+wz3Xu zBt1K3gRU+5AIeBbxD1H5yOShhuS8KMD3xh7XIpNu8KufVCzWAbLcto/oBAaXH9iXrdZ/fRZ ibQhNldCYSHv8zHt8uYMUs5AlL8TTEsEsx+Zrfhr4/dZWmnCBVLyMxFX3apwUq4onjmAeDmn MOzxlqp5kO/FJlUK5KHPvNYMnkA75zLGfONTZmnsc7nybpMta3YVAgMBAAGjggE4MIIBNDAJ BgNVHRMEAjAAMIGsBgNVHSAEgaQwgaEwgZ4GC2CGSAGG+EUBBwEBMIGOMCgGCCsGAQUFBwIB FhxodHRwczovL3d3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vQ1BTMGIGCCsGAQUFBwICMFYwFRYOVmVyaVNp Z24sIEluYy4wAwIBARo9VmVyaVNpZ24ncyBDUFMgaW5jb3JwLiBieSByZWZlcmVuY2UgbGlh Yi4gbHRkLiAoYyk5NyBWZXJpU2lnbjARBglghkgBhvhCAQEEBAMCB4AwMAYKYIZIAYb4RQEG BwQiFiAyNTMxNjE3MDc0YTVhNTU3OTNjN2U4NDI2NjEyNTAyNjAzBgNVHR8ELDAqMCigJqAk hiJodHRwOi8vY3JsLnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9jbGFzczEuY3JsMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBAUAA4GB ALIvzgvKUG1MgnjGt+pKACDHwud9y2gSne3lNmmfl9wzLNsSH+32cSUyVgKoQQ0hxKslfgQd xiJQ5PAQPCc2bA6SKJTYiaBE0aWnqGpLTNN4OUKTX3KXEBsxrCP2Tzjj6cm1ghHl12Z8IF1n VRdwTiGeuDVhv0bHVRJkJyFt0tFOMIIFHTCCBIagAwIBAgIQDFhozXoBNyMFqZW5+0I4wjAN BgkqhkiG9w0BAQQFADCBzDEXMBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4xHzAdBgNVBAsTFlZl cmlTaWduIFRydXN0IE5ldHdvcmsxRjBEBgNVBAsTPXd3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcmVwb3Np dG9yeS9SUEEgSW5jb3JwLiBCeSBSZWYuLExJQUIuTFREKGMpOTgxSDBGBgNVBAMTP1ZlcmlT aWduIENsYXNzIDEgQ0EgSW5kaXZpZHVhbCBTdWJzY3JpYmVyLVBlcnNvbmEgTm90IFZhbGlk YXRlZDAeFw0wMzEwMDcwMDAwMDBaFw0wNDEwMDYyMzU5NTlaMIIBCzEXMBUGA1UEChMOVmVy aVNpZ24sIEluYy4xHzAdBgNVBAsTFlZlcmlTaWduIFRydXN0IE5ldHdvcmsxRjBEBgNVBAsT PXd3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcmVwb3NpdG9yeS9SUEEgSW5jb3JwLiBieSBSZWYuLExJQUIu TFREKGMpOTgxHjAcBgNVBAsTFVBlcnNvbmEgTm90IFZhbGlkYXRlZDEzMDEGA1UECxMqRGln aXRhbCBJRCBDbGFzcyAxIC0gTmV0c2NhcGUgRnVsbCBTZXJ2aWNlMRMwEQYDVQQDFApBbGV4 IENvbnRhMR0wGwYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFg5hY29udGFAdHhjLmNvbTCCASIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEB BQADggEPADCCAQoCggEBALgW3oel96XxVMcdn78gvsKs3glm42IQbSNsch1nqnh8iFVikuJI rnugQTxaihWQwLAnFt3WSNoFHx4srCYxq2mdpbrrUeM6NlplpYe6PWT78jtkpw8oceTZX77A DPmUiskRheblLBuqr7DPde7MG3UreBFT7kAh4FvEPUfnI5KGG5LwowPfGHtcik27wq59ULNY Bsty2j+gEBpcf2Jet1n99FmJtCE2V0JhIe/zMe3y5gxSzkCUvxNMSwSzH5mt+Gvj91laacIF UvIzEVfdqnBSriieOYB4Oacw7PGWqnmQ78UmVQrkoc+81gyeQDvnMsZ841NmaexzufJuky1r dhUCAwEAAaOCATgwggE0MAkGA1UdEwQCMAAwgawGA1UdIASBpDCBoTCBngYLYIZIAYb4RQEH AQEwgY4wKAYIKwYBBQUHAgEWHGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9DUFMwYgYIKwYB BQUHAgIwVjAVFg5WZXJpU2lnbiwgSW5jLjADAgEBGj1WZXJpU2lnbidzIENQUyBpbmNvcnAu IGJ5IHJlZmVyZW5jZSBsaWFiLiBsdGQuIChjKTk3IFZlcmlTaWduMBEGCWCGSAGG+EIBAQQE AwIHgDAwBgpghkgBhvhFAQYHBCIWIDI1MzE2MTcwNzRhNWE1NTc5M2M3ZTg0MjY2MTI1MDI2 MDMGA1UdHwQsMCowKKAmoCSGImh0dHA6Ly9jcmwudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL2NsYXNzMS5jcmww DQYJKoZIhvcNAQEEBQADgYEAsi/OC8pQbUyCeMa36koAIMfC533LaBKd7eU2aZ+X3DMs2xIf 7fZxJTJWAqhBDSHEqyV+BB3GIlDk8BA8JzZsDpIolNiJoETRpaeoaktM03g5QpNfcpcQGzGs I/ZPOOPpybWCEeXXZnwgXWdVF3BOIZ64NWG/RsdVEmQnIW3S0U4xggSqMIIEpgIBATCB4TCB zDEXMBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4xHzAdBgNVBAsTFlZlcmlTaWduIFRydXN0IE5l dHdvcmsxRjBEBgNVBAsTPXd3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcmVwb3NpdG9yeS9SUEEgSW5jb3Jw LiBCeSBSZWYuLExJQUIuTFREKGMpOTgxSDBGBgNVBAMTP1ZlcmlTaWduIENsYXNzIDEgQ0Eg SW5kaXZpZHVhbCBTdWJzY3JpYmVyLVBlcnNvbmEgTm90IFZhbGlkYXRlZAIQDFhozXoBNyMF qZW5+0I4wjAJBgUrDgMCGgUAoIICnTAYBgkqhkiG9w0BCQMxCwYJKoZIhvcNAQcBMBwGCSqG SIb3DQEJBTEPFw0wNDAxMTAxNjMyNTFaMCMGCSqGSIb3DQEJBDEWBBSuCmgQSF0IL6tyCyH/ 7iB368NQeDBSBgkqhkiG9w0BCQ8xRTBDMAoGCCqGSIb3DQMHMA4GCCqGSIb3DQMCAgIAgDAN BggqhkiG9w0DAgIBQDAHBgUrDgMCBzANBggqhkiG9w0DAgIBKDCB8gYJKwYBBAGCNxAEMYHk MIHhMIHMMRcwFQYDVQQKEw5WZXJpU2lnbiwgSW5jLjEfMB0GA1UECxMWVmVyaVNpZ24gVHJ1 c3QgTmV0d29yazFGMEQGA1UECxM9d3d3LnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9yZXBvc2l0b3J5L1JQQSBJ bmNvcnAuIEJ5IFJlZi4sTElBQi5MVEQoYyk5ODFIMEYGA1UEAxM/VmVyaVNpZ24gQ2xhc3Mg MSBDQSBJbmRpdmlkdWFsIFN1YnNjcmliZXItUGVyc29uYSBOb3QgVmFsaWRhdGVkAhAMWGjN egE3IwWplbn7QjjCMIH0BgsqhkiG9w0BCRACCzGB5KCB4TCBzDEXMBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNp Z24sIEluYy4xHzAdBgNVBAsTFlZlcmlTaWduIFRydXN0IE5ldHdvcmsxRjBEBgNVBAsTPXd3 dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcmVwb3NpdG9yeS9SUEEgSW5jb3JwLiBCeSBSZWYuLExJQUIuTFRE KGMpOTgxSDBGBgNVBAMTP1ZlcmlTaWduIENsYXNzIDEgQ0EgSW5kaXZpZHVhbCBTdWJzY3Jp YmVyLVBlcnNvbmEgTm90IFZhbGlkYXRlZAIQDFhozXoBNyMFqZW5+0I4wjANBgkqhkiG9w0B AQEFAASCAQBZfx/ccwKOHgqKOlI2NRdgoUJdWaaShI+VeO8eYMET0smX9qyGfMlwVpy9Vpx8 TVberIBRFZiprauLzusbJjg9q3vKX+Hpvv/MrOKizYRrblFmT7920da4upRYMWS8suhF4qL1 tbt5UCJtjT8Zo2eSvn4az+3VmEynYoE9oWKB7g16y3BUN3giGR5tOXv/G6dbyGOL1WdEA7JE UNY7XCerjIG0UfBdsQFEtn1Z/rVteeJkD/pnbw/vwUpRnk7X+LVzemzk5njZ+o9wEOP/lTZ8 /SIyivu2gPwbBi3dgYU5WAn9K/JTGt2Ss00YHe6qMHRxesqQC6lLZ7vDeBrQSR0RAAAAAAAA --------------ms050608040509070005020502-- _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jan 10 13:48:39 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA13654 for ; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 13:48:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AfO9c-0003hF-0F for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 13:48:12 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i0AImBGL014206 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 13:48:11 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AfO9b-0003h3-OL for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 13:48:11 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA13645 for ; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 13:48:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AfO9U-0007C7-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 13:48:04 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AfO4o-0006yk-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 13:43:15 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AfO0s-0006mA-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 13:39:10 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AfO0j-0003Hp-0x; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 13:39:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AfNzm-0003HA-0J for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 13:38:02 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA13439 for ; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 13:37:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AfNzY-0006i7-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 13:37:48 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AfNvR-0006X6-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 13:33:34 -0500 Received: from transfire.transwitch.com ([208.5.237.254] helo=pguin2.txc.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AfNsN-0006Nl-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 13:30:23 -0500 Received: from txc.com ([172.18.253.135]) by pguin2.txc.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id i0AITr014002; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 13:29:53 -0500 Message-ID: <4000449F.9020501@txc.com> Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 13:29:51 -0500 From: Alex Conta User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031208 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: James Kempf CC: Alex Rousskov , mpowr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [mpowr] SUMMARY: Mailing List Management Discussion References: <5.1.0.14.2.20040109064121.0427f9f8@ms101.mail1.com> <20040109181541.GA12092@1-4-5.net> <019b01c3d6f7$36ca0020$606015ac@dclkempt40> <020601c3d6fe$9a5513d0$606015ac@dclkempt40> In-Reply-To: <020601c3d6fe$9a5513d0$606015ac@dclkempt40> Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="------------ms080606030001050902050305" Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format. --------------ms080606030001050902050305 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit James Kempf wrote: >>I do not see why not. Your arguments below seem to be unrelated to WG >>consensus (they may be related to WG ability to communicate consensus >>efficiently, which is a very different thing). >> > > > Concensus is a process that involves not only people forming opinions but > also communicating them in a group setting. If the ability to communicate is > disrupted, the concensus process is disrupted. > > jak > > The principle of consensus stated by Alex is important, if the power is to be given to the WG chairs. I do not follow James reasoning, of why consensus can be disrupted - the chain from "disruptive messages", to "communication disruptive", and then to "consensus disruptive". Realistically, I do not see the possibility, from a technical perspective, of X's messages considered disruptive, impeding on messages sent by the WG chairs to the list, and members of the list responding to the WG chairs, to measure consensus. Is there something that I am missing? Regards, Alex > _______________________________________________ > mpowr mailing list > mpowr@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr > > --------------ms080606030001050902050305 Content-Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIINqDCC A2IwggLLoAMCAQICEAvaCxfBP4mOqwl0erTOLjMwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQECBQAwXzELMAkGA1UE BhMCVVMxFzAVBgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMTcwNQYDVQQLEy5DbGFzcyAxIFB1Ymxp YyBQcmltYXJ5IENlcnRpZmljYXRpb24gQXV0aG9yaXR5MB4XDTk4MDUxMjAwMDAwMFoXDTA4 MDUxMjIzNTk1OVowgcwxFzAVBgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMR8wHQYDVQQLExZWZXJp U2lnbiBUcnVzdCBOZXR3b3JrMUYwRAYDVQQLEz13d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3JlcG9zaXRv cnkvUlBBIEluY29ycC4gQnkgUmVmLixMSUFCLkxURChjKTk4MUgwRgYDVQQDEz9WZXJpU2ln biBDbGFzcyAxIENBIEluZGl2aWR1YWwgU3Vic2NyaWJlci1QZXJzb25hIE5vdCBWYWxpZGF0 ZWQwgZ8wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADgY0AMIGJAoGBALtaRIoEFrtV/QN6ii2UTxV4NrgNSrJv nFS/vOh3Kp258Gi7ldkxQXB6gUu5SBNWLccI4YRCq8CikqtEXKpC8IIOAukv+8I7u77JJwpd trA2QjO1blSIT4dKvxna+RXoD4e2HOPMxpqOf2okkuP84GW6p7F+78nbN2rISsgJBuSZAgMB AAGjgbAwga0wDwYDVR0TBAgwBgEB/wIBADBHBgNVHSAEQDA+MDwGC2CGSAGG+EUBBwEBMC0w KwYIKwYBBQUHAgEWH3d3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcmVwb3NpdG9yeS9SUEEwMQYDVR0fBCow KDAmoCSgIoYgaHR0cDovL2NybC52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcGNhMS5jcmwwCwYDVR0PBAQDAgEG MBEGCWCGSAGG+EIBAQQEAwIBBjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQIFAAOBgQACfZ5vRUs4oLje6VNkIbzk TCuPHv6SQKzYCjlqoTIhLAebq1n+0mIafVU4sDdz3PQHZmNiveFTcFKH56jYUulbLarh3s+s MVTUixnI2COo7wQrMn0sGBzIfImoLnfyRNFlCk10te7TG5JzdC6JOzUTcudAMZrTssSr51a+ i+P7FTCCBR0wggSGoAMCAQICEAxYaM16ATcjBamVuftCOMIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEEBQAwgcwx FzAVBgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMR8wHQYDVQQLExZWZXJpU2lnbiBUcnVzdCBOZXR3 b3JrMUYwRAYDVQQLEz13d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3JlcG9zaXRvcnkvUlBBIEluY29ycC4g QnkgUmVmLixMSUFCLkxURChjKTk4MUgwRgYDVQQDEz9WZXJpU2lnbiBDbGFzcyAxIENBIElu ZGl2aWR1YWwgU3Vic2NyaWJlci1QZXJzb25hIE5vdCBWYWxpZGF0ZWQwHhcNMDMxMDA3MDAw MDAwWhcNMDQxMDA2MjM1OTU5WjCCAQsxFzAVBgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMR8wHQYD VQQLExZWZXJpU2lnbiBUcnVzdCBOZXR3b3JrMUYwRAYDVQQLEz13d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29t L3JlcG9zaXRvcnkvUlBBIEluY29ycC4gYnkgUmVmLixMSUFCLkxURChjKTk4MR4wHAYDVQQL ExVQZXJzb25hIE5vdCBWYWxpZGF0ZWQxMzAxBgNVBAsTKkRpZ2l0YWwgSUQgQ2xhc3MgMSAt IE5ldHNjYXBlIEZ1bGwgU2VydmljZTETMBEGA1UEAxQKQWxleCBDb250YTEdMBsGCSqGSIb3 DQEJARYOYWNvbnRhQHR4Yy5jb20wggEiMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4IBDwAwggEKAoIBAQC4 Ft6Hpfel8VTHHZ+/IL7CrN4JZuNiEG0jbHIdZ6p4fIhVYpLiSK57oEE8WooVkMCwJxbd1kja BR8eLKwmMatpnaW661HjOjZaZaWHuj1k+/I7ZKcPKHHk2V++wAz5lIrJEYXm5Swbqq+wz3Xu zBt1K3gRU+5AIeBbxD1H5yOShhuS8KMD3xh7XIpNu8KufVCzWAbLcto/oBAaXH9iXrdZ/fRZ ibQhNldCYSHv8zHt8uYMUs5AlL8TTEsEsx+Zrfhr4/dZWmnCBVLyMxFX3apwUq4onjmAeDmn MOzxlqp5kO/FJlUK5KHPvNYMnkA75zLGfONTZmnsc7nybpMta3YVAgMBAAGjggE4MIIBNDAJ BgNVHRMEAjAAMIGsBgNVHSAEgaQwgaEwgZ4GC2CGSAGG+EUBBwEBMIGOMCgGCCsGAQUFBwIB FhxodHRwczovL3d3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vQ1BTMGIGCCsGAQUFBwICMFYwFRYOVmVyaVNp Z24sIEluYy4wAwIBARo9VmVyaVNpZ24ncyBDUFMgaW5jb3JwLiBieSByZWZlcmVuY2UgbGlh Yi4gbHRkLiAoYyk5NyBWZXJpU2lnbjARBglghkgBhvhCAQEEBAMCB4AwMAYKYIZIAYb4RQEG BwQiFiAyNTMxNjE3MDc0YTVhNTU3OTNjN2U4NDI2NjEyNTAyNjAzBgNVHR8ELDAqMCigJqAk hiJodHRwOi8vY3JsLnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9jbGFzczEuY3JsMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBAUAA4GB ALIvzgvKUG1MgnjGt+pKACDHwud9y2gSne3lNmmfl9wzLNsSH+32cSUyVgKoQQ0hxKslfgQd xiJQ5PAQPCc2bA6SKJTYiaBE0aWnqGpLTNN4OUKTX3KXEBsxrCP2Tzjj6cm1ghHl12Z8IF1n VRdwTiGeuDVhv0bHVRJkJyFt0tFOMIIFHTCCBIagAwIBAgIQDFhozXoBNyMFqZW5+0I4wjAN BgkqhkiG9w0BAQQFADCBzDEXMBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4xHzAdBgNVBAsTFlZl cmlTaWduIFRydXN0IE5ldHdvcmsxRjBEBgNVBAsTPXd3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcmVwb3Np dG9yeS9SUEEgSW5jb3JwLiBCeSBSZWYuLExJQUIuTFREKGMpOTgxSDBGBgNVBAMTP1ZlcmlT aWduIENsYXNzIDEgQ0EgSW5kaXZpZHVhbCBTdWJzY3JpYmVyLVBlcnNvbmEgTm90IFZhbGlk YXRlZDAeFw0wMzEwMDcwMDAwMDBaFw0wNDEwMDYyMzU5NTlaMIIBCzEXMBUGA1UEChMOVmVy aVNpZ24sIEluYy4xHzAdBgNVBAsTFlZlcmlTaWduIFRydXN0IE5ldHdvcmsxRjBEBgNVBAsT PXd3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcmVwb3NpdG9yeS9SUEEgSW5jb3JwLiBieSBSZWYuLExJQUIu TFREKGMpOTgxHjAcBgNVBAsTFVBlcnNvbmEgTm90IFZhbGlkYXRlZDEzMDEGA1UECxMqRGln aXRhbCBJRCBDbGFzcyAxIC0gTmV0c2NhcGUgRnVsbCBTZXJ2aWNlMRMwEQYDVQQDFApBbGV4 IENvbnRhMR0wGwYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFg5hY29udGFAdHhjLmNvbTCCASIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEB BQADggEPADCCAQoCggEBALgW3oel96XxVMcdn78gvsKs3glm42IQbSNsch1nqnh8iFVikuJI rnugQTxaihWQwLAnFt3WSNoFHx4srCYxq2mdpbrrUeM6NlplpYe6PWT78jtkpw8oceTZX77A DPmUiskRheblLBuqr7DPde7MG3UreBFT7kAh4FvEPUfnI5KGG5LwowPfGHtcik27wq59ULNY Bsty2j+gEBpcf2Jet1n99FmJtCE2V0JhIe/zMe3y5gxSzkCUvxNMSwSzH5mt+Gvj91laacIF UvIzEVfdqnBSriieOYB4Oacw7PGWqnmQ78UmVQrkoc+81gyeQDvnMsZ841NmaexzufJuky1r dhUCAwEAAaOCATgwggE0MAkGA1UdEwQCMAAwgawGA1UdIASBpDCBoTCBngYLYIZIAYb4RQEH AQEwgY4wKAYIKwYBBQUHAgEWHGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9DUFMwYgYIKwYB BQUHAgIwVjAVFg5WZXJpU2lnbiwgSW5jLjADAgEBGj1WZXJpU2lnbidzIENQUyBpbmNvcnAu IGJ5IHJlZmVyZW5jZSBsaWFiLiBsdGQuIChjKTk3IFZlcmlTaWduMBEGCWCGSAGG+EIBAQQE AwIHgDAwBgpghkgBhvhFAQYHBCIWIDI1MzE2MTcwNzRhNWE1NTc5M2M3ZTg0MjY2MTI1MDI2 MDMGA1UdHwQsMCowKKAmoCSGImh0dHA6Ly9jcmwudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL2NsYXNzMS5jcmww DQYJKoZIhvcNAQEEBQADgYEAsi/OC8pQbUyCeMa36koAIMfC533LaBKd7eU2aZ+X3DMs2xIf 7fZxJTJWAqhBDSHEqyV+BB3GIlDk8BA8JzZsDpIolNiJoETRpaeoaktM03g5QpNfcpcQGzGs I/ZPOOPpybWCEeXXZnwgXWdVF3BOIZ64NWG/RsdVEmQnIW3S0U4xggSqMIIEpgIBATCB4TCB zDEXMBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4xHzAdBgNVBAsTFlZlcmlTaWduIFRydXN0IE5l dHdvcmsxRjBEBgNVBAsTPXd3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcmVwb3NpdG9yeS9SUEEgSW5jb3Jw LiBCeSBSZWYuLExJQUIuTFREKGMpOTgxSDBGBgNVBAMTP1ZlcmlTaWduIENsYXNzIDEgQ0Eg SW5kaXZpZHVhbCBTdWJzY3JpYmVyLVBlcnNvbmEgTm90IFZhbGlkYXRlZAIQDFhozXoBNyMF qZW5+0I4wjAJBgUrDgMCGgUAoIICnTAYBgkqhkiG9w0BCQMxCwYJKoZIhvcNAQcBMBwGCSqG SIb3DQEJBTEPFw0wNDAxMTAxODI5NTFaMCMGCSqGSIb3DQEJBDEWBBT73IMdkHlFB1Eoo6zu xWwiHh+gATBSBgkqhkiG9w0BCQ8xRTBDMAoGCCqGSIb3DQMHMA4GCCqGSIb3DQMCAgIAgDAN BggqhkiG9w0DAgIBQDAHBgUrDgMCBzANBggqhkiG9w0DAgIBKDCB8gYJKwYBBAGCNxAEMYHk MIHhMIHMMRcwFQYDVQQKEw5WZXJpU2lnbiwgSW5jLjEfMB0GA1UECxMWVmVyaVNpZ24gVHJ1 c3QgTmV0d29yazFGMEQGA1UECxM9d3d3LnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9yZXBvc2l0b3J5L1JQQSBJ bmNvcnAuIEJ5IFJlZi4sTElBQi5MVEQoYyk5ODFIMEYGA1UEAxM/VmVyaVNpZ24gQ2xhc3Mg MSBDQSBJbmRpdmlkdWFsIFN1YnNjcmliZXItUGVyc29uYSBOb3QgVmFsaWRhdGVkAhAMWGjN egE3IwWplbn7QjjCMIH0BgsqhkiG9w0BCRACCzGB5KCB4TCBzDEXMBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNp Z24sIEluYy4xHzAdBgNVBAsTFlZlcmlTaWduIFRydXN0IE5ldHdvcmsxRjBEBgNVBAsTPXd3 dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcmVwb3NpdG9yeS9SUEEgSW5jb3JwLiBCeSBSZWYuLExJQUIuTFRE KGMpOTgxSDBGBgNVBAMTP1ZlcmlTaWduIENsYXNzIDEgQ0EgSW5kaXZpZHVhbCBTdWJzY3Jp YmVyLVBlcnNvbmEgTm90IFZhbGlkYXRlZAIQDFhozXoBNyMFqZW5+0I4wjANBgkqhkiG9w0B AQEFAASCAQAXfgWPeBsWuWn6cXYOsPjz6wwRL/kmv/BWvDC6p7e3zJ8s7/sI0bfpDAjAAhGd wGVx0w4asWBdVzwDTjBX9EuiW46mqiNBrO9yd/ALc9v7tIUEUjao4RXA7CqykoodMHEdWUm4 aD23PrvImr+j3LNHIsP1y519QjQHCMC8XrZLDpCqjVOmsro36jGG7dz5A0vEqtmAiyrKvUAG cF5WM329EDC7Y+mi6pv+xaDHQeCKGdIUJLWgp5IoOfoSfbXtUs5KBI9caEXkrgVkanwylyh0 L0mEdmvY+FV8Ip6MMIWJfErAGkiOOa8qHjkjUe33FUGUicgN/0+GU6kOPTel2ytdAAAAAAAA --------------ms080606030001050902050305-- _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jan 10 14:27:32 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA14805 for ; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 14:27:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AfOlF-0005Ne-Je for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 14:27:05 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i0AJR5ZI020676 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 14:27:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AfOlF-0005NP-ET for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 14:27:05 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA14793 for ; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 14:27:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AfOl7-0001PW-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 14:26:57 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AfOgo-0001Hf-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 14:22:31 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AfOfL-0001CX-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 14:20:59 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AfOfN-0005FG-8i; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 14:21:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AfOel-0005Cz-E0 for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 14:20:23 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA14710 for ; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 14:20:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AfOei-00019W-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 14:20:20 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AfOcy-00015G-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 14:18:33 -0500 Received: from smtp.exodus.net ([66.35.230.237] helo=smtp02-w.exodus.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AfObk-00010H-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 14:17:16 -0500 Received: from ms101.mail1.com (ms101.mail1.com [209.1.5.174]) by smtp02-w.exodus.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0AGRQEv008054 for ; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 10:27:27 -0600 Received: from ala-mrwtemp.thingmagic.com (unverified [24.61.30.237]) by accounting.espmail.com (Rockliffe SMTPRA 5.2.5) with ESMTP id ; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 11:16:45 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040110134502.03860c10@ms101.mail1.com> X-Sender: margaret@thingmagic.com@ms101.mail1.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 14:14:53 -0500 To: Alex Conta From: Margaret Wasserman Subject: Re: [mpowr] SUMMARY: Mailing List Management Discussion Cc: James Kempf , Alex Rousskov , mpowr@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <4000449F.9020501@txc.com> References: <020601c3d6fe$9a5513d0$606015ac@dclkempt40> <5.1.0.14.2.20040109064121.0427f9f8@ms101.mail1.com> <20040109181541.GA12092@1-4-5.net> <019b01c3d6f7$36ca0020$606015ac@dclkempt40> <020601c3d6fe$9a5513d0$606015ac@dclkempt40> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Hi Alex, >Realistically, I do not see the possibility, from a technical perspective, >of X's messages considered disruptive, impeding on messages sent by the WG >chairs to the list, and members of the list responding to the WG chairs, >to measure consensus. Is there something that I am missing? I'll give you an example... Let's say that a mailing list is being disrupted by one person (X) issuing personal attacks and repeated threats against other WG participants who disagree with him, both privately and on the list. These could be threats of violence, threats of legal action, or threats to contact that person's boss and report misconduct. I have been on the receiving end of all three types of threats in my IETF experience, so they do happen. In fact, one person did contact my boss, but that's another story... The WG chair believes that X's repeated attacks and threats are disrupting the WG mailing list by (1) intimidating some people and/or making them reticent to express their views, (2) driving away key contributors who are not willing to tolerate this type of behaviour, (3) discouraging new people who might bring energy and perspective to the group and/or (4) causing other people to resort to abuse and threats in response. The reason she believes the four things outlined above is that people have told her so -- in fact, two IAB or IESG members who have provided valuable input in the past have told her that they are no longer willing to follow her mailing list because of the tone and the N/S ratio. The responsible AD has told her two or three times that she needs to do "something" to bring the mailing list under control. This may sound far fetched to you, but my understanding is that this will sound familiar to people whose mailing lists have been disrupted by this type of behaviour. The WG chair has asked X, privately, to modify his behaviour, and her attempts were greeted with the expected insults and threats. After a couple of private warnings, the WG chair sent a message to the list, warning X that if he does not change his behaviour, she will rescind his posting rights, and X responded with an accusation that the chair has some type of conflict of interest and should step down. No one defended X. One person responded to X, defending the chair, and X responded with threats. Now what? Do you really think that it would be useful for the WG chair to make a consensus call (which usually takes two weeks) on the WG mailing list before she revokes X's posting privileges for 30 days? How would she interpret the results? Should she somehow include the people who are no longer reading the mailing list because of X's antics? How does she count the people who are too intimidated to respond publicly? In these cases, it is typically clear to everyone involved what should happen. The WG chair should be able to do a quick check with the AD and then do the right thing. I agree with your statements that the WG chair should not be able to remove someone from the mailing list for holding an opposing technical view, but I just can't believe (in a system that requires AD approval and includes an appeal process) that a WG chair could get away with doing that. Margaret [Disclaimer: The incidents described in this message are fictional. Any resemblance to actual events or persons, real or imaginary, is purely coincidental.] _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jan 10 21:55:01 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA29881 for ; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 21:55:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AfVkI-0000mb-E4 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 21:54:34 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i0B2sY5P003006 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 21:54:34 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AfVkI-0000mP-60 for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 21:54:34 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA29874 for ; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 21:54:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AfVkA-0005cr-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 21:54:26 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AfViI-0005Zz-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 21:52:31 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AfVgp-0005Wn-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 21:50:59 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AfVgr-0000h9-Lr; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 21:51:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AfVgG-0000eR-6t for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 21:50:24 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA29835 for ; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 21:50:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AfVgD-0005VL-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 21:50:21 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AfVeK-0005TT-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 21:48:25 -0500 Received: from transfire.txc.com ([208.5.237.254] helo=pguin2.txc.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AfVe6-0005RG-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 21:48:10 -0500 Received: from txc.com ([172.18.253.133]) by pguin2.txc.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id i0B2m3018369; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 21:48:03 -0500 Message-ID: <4000B961.2020604@txc.com> Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 21:48:01 -0500 From: Alex Conta User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031208 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Melinda Shore CC: Alex Rousskov , James Kempf , mpowr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [mpowr] Re: Gauging consensus during disruptions References: <8657C180-42F6-11D8-AFFF-000A95E35274@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <8657C180-42F6-11D8-AFFF-000A95E35274@cisco.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="------------ms010609000302010909000700" Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format. --------------ms010609000302010909000700 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Technically, I cannot see how, as long as Email functions, the WG members could not communicate with the WG chairs, and vice-versa. However, a scenario in which I can see the inability of detecting consensus is that in which things get out of hand, nobody listening to the WG chair, because of the WG chair's poor people management skills. I think IETF should avoid instating a new rule just to compensate for possible poor management skills of a few WG chairs. Alex Melinda Shore wrote: > On Friday, January 9, 2004, at 05:42 PM, Alex Rousskov wrote: > >> Let me try to clarify. I am asserting that the Chair must _always_ >> represent what she thinks the WG rough consensus is. It does not >> matter whether the mailing list is being disrupted, not functioning at >> all, or the IETF web site is down. > > > Sure it does. If you've been through one of these things you > know that you cannot have the discussion required to determine > consensus. I think that this is one of those rare cases where > you have to trust your chair and know that there's an appeals > process if the chair really is behaving arbitrarily. > > Melinda > > > _______________________________________________ > mpowr mailing list > mpowr@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr > > --------------ms010609000302010909000700 Content-Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIINqDCC A2IwggLLoAMCAQICEAvaCxfBP4mOqwl0erTOLjMwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQECBQAwXzELMAkGA1UE BhMCVVMxFzAVBgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMTcwNQYDVQQLEy5DbGFzcyAxIFB1Ymxp YyBQcmltYXJ5IENlcnRpZmljYXRpb24gQXV0aG9yaXR5MB4XDTk4MDUxMjAwMDAwMFoXDTA4 MDUxMjIzNTk1OVowgcwxFzAVBgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMR8wHQYDVQQLExZWZXJp U2lnbiBUcnVzdCBOZXR3b3JrMUYwRAYDVQQLEz13d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3JlcG9zaXRv cnkvUlBBIEluY29ycC4gQnkgUmVmLixMSUFCLkxURChjKTk4MUgwRgYDVQQDEz9WZXJpU2ln biBDbGFzcyAxIENBIEluZGl2aWR1YWwgU3Vic2NyaWJlci1QZXJzb25hIE5vdCBWYWxpZGF0 ZWQwgZ8wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADgY0AMIGJAoGBALtaRIoEFrtV/QN6ii2UTxV4NrgNSrJv nFS/vOh3Kp258Gi7ldkxQXB6gUu5SBNWLccI4YRCq8CikqtEXKpC8IIOAukv+8I7u77JJwpd trA2QjO1blSIT4dKvxna+RXoD4e2HOPMxpqOf2okkuP84GW6p7F+78nbN2rISsgJBuSZAgMB AAGjgbAwga0wDwYDVR0TBAgwBgEB/wIBADBHBgNVHSAEQDA+MDwGC2CGSAGG+EUBBwEBMC0w KwYIKwYBBQUHAgEWH3d3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcmVwb3NpdG9yeS9SUEEwMQYDVR0fBCow KDAmoCSgIoYgaHR0cDovL2NybC52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcGNhMS5jcmwwCwYDVR0PBAQDAgEG MBEGCWCGSAGG+EIBAQQEAwIBBjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQIFAAOBgQACfZ5vRUs4oLje6VNkIbzk TCuPHv6SQKzYCjlqoTIhLAebq1n+0mIafVU4sDdz3PQHZmNiveFTcFKH56jYUulbLarh3s+s MVTUixnI2COo7wQrMn0sGBzIfImoLnfyRNFlCk10te7TG5JzdC6JOzUTcudAMZrTssSr51a+ i+P7FTCCBR0wggSGoAMCAQICEAxYaM16ATcjBamVuftCOMIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEEBQAwgcwx FzAVBgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMR8wHQYDVQQLExZWZXJpU2lnbiBUcnVzdCBOZXR3 b3JrMUYwRAYDVQQLEz13d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3JlcG9zaXRvcnkvUlBBIEluY29ycC4g QnkgUmVmLixMSUFCLkxURChjKTk4MUgwRgYDVQQDEz9WZXJpU2lnbiBDbGFzcyAxIENBIElu ZGl2aWR1YWwgU3Vic2NyaWJlci1QZXJzb25hIE5vdCBWYWxpZGF0ZWQwHhcNMDMxMDA3MDAw MDAwWhcNMDQxMDA2MjM1OTU5WjCCAQsxFzAVBgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMR8wHQYD VQQLExZWZXJpU2lnbiBUcnVzdCBOZXR3b3JrMUYwRAYDVQQLEz13d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29t L3JlcG9zaXRvcnkvUlBBIEluY29ycC4gYnkgUmVmLixMSUFCLkxURChjKTk4MR4wHAYDVQQL ExVQZXJzb25hIE5vdCBWYWxpZGF0ZWQxMzAxBgNVBAsTKkRpZ2l0YWwgSUQgQ2xhc3MgMSAt IE5ldHNjYXBlIEZ1bGwgU2VydmljZTETMBEGA1UEAxQKQWxleCBDb250YTEdMBsGCSqGSIb3 DQEJARYOYWNvbnRhQHR4Yy5jb20wggEiMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4IBDwAwggEKAoIBAQC4 Ft6Hpfel8VTHHZ+/IL7CrN4JZuNiEG0jbHIdZ6p4fIhVYpLiSK57oEE8WooVkMCwJxbd1kja BR8eLKwmMatpnaW661HjOjZaZaWHuj1k+/I7ZKcPKHHk2V++wAz5lIrJEYXm5Swbqq+wz3Xu zBt1K3gRU+5AIeBbxD1H5yOShhuS8KMD3xh7XIpNu8KufVCzWAbLcto/oBAaXH9iXrdZ/fRZ ibQhNldCYSHv8zHt8uYMUs5AlL8TTEsEsx+Zrfhr4/dZWmnCBVLyMxFX3apwUq4onjmAeDmn MOzxlqp5kO/FJlUK5KHPvNYMnkA75zLGfONTZmnsc7nybpMta3YVAgMBAAGjggE4MIIBNDAJ BgNVHRMEAjAAMIGsBgNVHSAEgaQwgaEwgZ4GC2CGSAGG+EUBBwEBMIGOMCgGCCsGAQUFBwIB FhxodHRwczovL3d3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vQ1BTMGIGCCsGAQUFBwICMFYwFRYOVmVyaVNp Z24sIEluYy4wAwIBARo9VmVyaVNpZ24ncyBDUFMgaW5jb3JwLiBieSByZWZlcmVuY2UgbGlh Yi4gbHRkLiAoYyk5NyBWZXJpU2lnbjARBglghkgBhvhCAQEEBAMCB4AwMAYKYIZIAYb4RQEG BwQiFiAyNTMxNjE3MDc0YTVhNTU3OTNjN2U4NDI2NjEyNTAyNjAzBgNVHR8ELDAqMCigJqAk hiJodHRwOi8vY3JsLnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9jbGFzczEuY3JsMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBAUAA4GB ALIvzgvKUG1MgnjGt+pKACDHwud9y2gSne3lNmmfl9wzLNsSH+32cSUyVgKoQQ0hxKslfgQd xiJQ5PAQPCc2bA6SKJTYiaBE0aWnqGpLTNN4OUKTX3KXEBsxrCP2Tzjj6cm1ghHl12Z8IF1n VRdwTiGeuDVhv0bHVRJkJyFt0tFOMIIFHTCCBIagAwIBAgIQDFhozXoBNyMFqZW5+0I4wjAN BgkqhkiG9w0BAQQFADCBzDEXMBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4xHzAdBgNVBAsTFlZl cmlTaWduIFRydXN0IE5ldHdvcmsxRjBEBgNVBAsTPXd3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcmVwb3Np dG9yeS9SUEEgSW5jb3JwLiBCeSBSZWYuLExJQUIuTFREKGMpOTgxSDBGBgNVBAMTP1ZlcmlT aWduIENsYXNzIDEgQ0EgSW5kaXZpZHVhbCBTdWJzY3JpYmVyLVBlcnNvbmEgTm90IFZhbGlk YXRlZDAeFw0wMzEwMDcwMDAwMDBaFw0wNDEwMDYyMzU5NTlaMIIBCzEXMBUGA1UEChMOVmVy aVNpZ24sIEluYy4xHzAdBgNVBAsTFlZlcmlTaWduIFRydXN0IE5ldHdvcmsxRjBEBgNVBAsT PXd3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcmVwb3NpdG9yeS9SUEEgSW5jb3JwLiBieSBSZWYuLExJQUIu TFREKGMpOTgxHjAcBgNVBAsTFVBlcnNvbmEgTm90IFZhbGlkYXRlZDEzMDEGA1UECxMqRGln aXRhbCBJRCBDbGFzcyAxIC0gTmV0c2NhcGUgRnVsbCBTZXJ2aWNlMRMwEQYDVQQDFApBbGV4 IENvbnRhMR0wGwYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFg5hY29udGFAdHhjLmNvbTCCASIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEB BQADggEPADCCAQoCggEBALgW3oel96XxVMcdn78gvsKs3glm42IQbSNsch1nqnh8iFVikuJI rnugQTxaihWQwLAnFt3WSNoFHx4srCYxq2mdpbrrUeM6NlplpYe6PWT78jtkpw8oceTZX77A DPmUiskRheblLBuqr7DPde7MG3UreBFT7kAh4FvEPUfnI5KGG5LwowPfGHtcik27wq59ULNY Bsty2j+gEBpcf2Jet1n99FmJtCE2V0JhIe/zMe3y5gxSzkCUvxNMSwSzH5mt+Gvj91laacIF UvIzEVfdqnBSriieOYB4Oacw7PGWqnmQ78UmVQrkoc+81gyeQDvnMsZ841NmaexzufJuky1r dhUCAwEAAaOCATgwggE0MAkGA1UdEwQCMAAwgawGA1UdIASBpDCBoTCBngYLYIZIAYb4RQEH AQEwgY4wKAYIKwYBBQUHAgEWHGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9DUFMwYgYIKwYB BQUHAgIwVjAVFg5WZXJpU2lnbiwgSW5jLjADAgEBGj1WZXJpU2lnbidzIENQUyBpbmNvcnAu IGJ5IHJlZmVyZW5jZSBsaWFiLiBsdGQuIChjKTk3IFZlcmlTaWduMBEGCWCGSAGG+EIBAQQE AwIHgDAwBgpghkgBhvhFAQYHBCIWIDI1MzE2MTcwNzRhNWE1NTc5M2M3ZTg0MjY2MTI1MDI2 MDMGA1UdHwQsMCowKKAmoCSGImh0dHA6Ly9jcmwudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL2NsYXNzMS5jcmww DQYJKoZIhvcNAQEEBQADgYEAsi/OC8pQbUyCeMa36koAIMfC533LaBKd7eU2aZ+X3DMs2xIf 7fZxJTJWAqhBDSHEqyV+BB3GIlDk8BA8JzZsDpIolNiJoETRpaeoaktM03g5QpNfcpcQGzGs I/ZPOOPpybWCEeXXZnwgXWdVF3BOIZ64NWG/RsdVEmQnIW3S0U4xggSqMIIEpgIBATCB4TCB zDEXMBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4xHzAdBgNVBAsTFlZlcmlTaWduIFRydXN0IE5l dHdvcmsxRjBEBgNVBAsTPXd3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcmVwb3NpdG9yeS9SUEEgSW5jb3Jw LiBCeSBSZWYuLExJQUIuTFREKGMpOTgxSDBGBgNVBAMTP1ZlcmlTaWduIENsYXNzIDEgQ0Eg SW5kaXZpZHVhbCBTdWJzY3JpYmVyLVBlcnNvbmEgTm90IFZhbGlkYXRlZAIQDFhozXoBNyMF qZW5+0I4wjAJBgUrDgMCGgUAoIICnTAYBgkqhkiG9w0BCQMxCwYJKoZIhvcNAQcBMBwGCSqG SIb3DQEJBTEPFw0wNDAxMTEwMjQ4MDFaMCMGCSqGSIb3DQEJBDEWBBTQqZJw0/kQ3xkdwB46 pf2P0zL7kzBSBgkqhkiG9w0BCQ8xRTBDMAoGCCqGSIb3DQMHMA4GCCqGSIb3DQMCAgIAgDAN BggqhkiG9w0DAgIBQDAHBgUrDgMCBzANBggqhkiG9w0DAgIBKDCB8gYJKwYBBAGCNxAEMYHk MIHhMIHMMRcwFQYDVQQKEw5WZXJpU2lnbiwgSW5jLjEfMB0GA1UECxMWVmVyaVNpZ24gVHJ1 c3QgTmV0d29yazFGMEQGA1UECxM9d3d3LnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9yZXBvc2l0b3J5L1JQQSBJ bmNvcnAuIEJ5IFJlZi4sTElBQi5MVEQoYyk5ODFIMEYGA1UEAxM/VmVyaVNpZ24gQ2xhc3Mg MSBDQSBJbmRpdmlkdWFsIFN1YnNjcmliZXItUGVyc29uYSBOb3QgVmFsaWRhdGVkAhAMWGjN egE3IwWplbn7QjjCMIH0BgsqhkiG9w0BCRACCzGB5KCB4TCBzDEXMBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNp Z24sIEluYy4xHzAdBgNVBAsTFlZlcmlTaWduIFRydXN0IE5ldHdvcmsxRjBEBgNVBAsTPXd3 dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcmVwb3NpdG9yeS9SUEEgSW5jb3JwLiBCeSBSZWYuLExJQUIuTFRE KGMpOTgxSDBGBgNVBAMTP1ZlcmlTaWduIENsYXNzIDEgQ0EgSW5kaXZpZHVhbCBTdWJzY3Jp YmVyLVBlcnNvbmEgTm90IFZhbGlkYXRlZAIQDFhozXoBNyMFqZW5+0I4wjANBgkqhkiG9w0B AQEFAASCAQANqSaCrhZcttoKAjnY5UXPFVFT5ogYfnwnGzG/K05V4ORJqANkFWK4i6yE8zrl WZ/3clCdn1u3Y39nXVXvoFfgiK9E6YaJfXbbnz/VqzMl5VQ2ycAkK4UfXHLnAMmwpOYsB+66 MrwXITwSyHDWJqOkc1x3BB3PUSei14GwhZXA9Zep7nE1JSlPlfQwdIHb7ZJXo7yJ3CsVgqD+ uBHUWnzlTOnVrOCGyeg2SmkgBD5uwxtE01JCbx7BV3siYEQ5Of3Qzbz87ZGu2E3MqcekeBCW iRMGrOiPyTcN/WERxc08465VOX2ZZPt8sNqD+H0Gm8KJDavo/Va2ResYNW956QU7AAAAAAAA --------------ms010609000302010909000700-- _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jan 10 22:22:50 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA00519 for ; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 22:22:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AfWBE-0001cu-7b for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 22:22:24 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i0B3MOxN006246 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 22:22:24 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AfWBE-0001cf-3G for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 22:22:24 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA00513 for ; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 22:22:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AfWBB-0006cd-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 22:22:21 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AfW9M-0006aN-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 22:20:28 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AfW7u-0006Xu-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 22:18:58 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AfW7w-0001WG-Sr; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 22:19:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AfW7V-0001Vp-Mc for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 22:18:33 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA00448 for ; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 22:18:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AfW7S-0006Wr-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 22:18:30 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AfW5n-0006TS-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 22:16:48 -0500 Received: from key1.docomolabs-usa.com ([216.98.102.225] helo=fridge.docomolabs-usa.com ident=fwuser) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AfW46-0006Nz-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 22:15:02 -0500 Message-ID: <009201c3d7f1$29610460$a76015ac@dclkempt40> From: "James Kempf" To: "Alex Conta" Cc: "Alex Rousskov" , References: <5.1.0.14.2.20040109064121.0427f9f8@ms101.mail1.com> <20040109181541.GA12092@1-4-5.net> <019b01c3d6f7$36ca0020$606015ac@dclkempt40> <020601c3d6fe$9a5513d0$606015ac@dclkempt40> <4000449F.9020501@txc.com> Subject: Re: [mpowr] SUMMARY: Mailing List Management Discussion Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 19:15:25 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alex, > The principle of consensus stated by Alex is important, if the power is > to be given to the WG chairs. > > I do not follow James reasoning, of why consensus can be disrupted - the > chain from "disruptive messages", to "communication disruptive", and > then to "consensus disruptive". > > Realistically, I do not see the possibility, from a technical > perspective, of X's messages considered disruptive, impeding on messages > sent by the WG chairs to the list, and members of the list responding to > the WG chairs, to measure consensus. Is there something that I am missing? > I think what you are missing is not having been a Working Group chair or perhaps even been in a Working Group that has had to suffer through one of these disruptive incidents. They have nothing to do with technical differences of opinion, in fact, the disruptions don't involve technical matters at all (though the disruptor may phrase them as being technical in order to avoid being accused of bringing up peripheral matters). What happens is that the Working Group ceases to do any good technical work (or in the case that I was involved in, any work at all for a period of 6 months), and essentially suffers irreperable damage. Getting good technical work out of a Working Group after a major distruption is almost impossible. The Working Group becomes a drag on the IETF's resources, because it produces little value. Obviously interpreting from your postings, you've had the experience of a Working Group chair, in some sense, abusing their position to squelch your or someone else's technical input because it contradicted the chair's opinion. I'm sensitive to that experience, but I believe that, in the balance, a disruption that essentially destroys a Working Group's ability to function effectively is more serious, because it is an attack on the basic values of community-based decision making, and results in a large drain on resources that the IETF cannot afford (and I mean that in both an energy/motivation as well as a financial sense). A disagreement between a technical contributor and a Working Group chair in which the Working Group chair abuses their power that is brought to an Area Director or appealed has a high probability of succeding in removing the Working Group chair. On the other hand, after a disruptive incident, it is almost impossible to rescue the nuked Working Group. jak _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Jan 10 23:41:10 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA01812 for ; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 23:41:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AfXOw-0004iI-FZ for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 23:40:38 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i0B4ecRu018115 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 23:40:38 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AfXOv-0004i6-I2 for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 23:40:37 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA01794 for ; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 23:40:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AfXOo-0001GJ-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 23:40:30 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AfXIs-00016B-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 23:34:23 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AfXGm-0000xu-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 23:32:12 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AfXGa-0004Bl-Qk; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 23:32:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AfXGD-0004B8-Tc for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 23:31:46 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA01687 for ; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 23:31:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AfXG6-0000xG-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 23:31:30 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AfXBd-0000qi-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 23:26:54 -0500 Received: from transfire.transwitch.com ([208.5.237.254] helo=pguin2.txc.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AfX8r-0000lu-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 23:24:01 -0500 Received: from txc.com ([172.18.253.133]) by pguin2.txc.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id i0B4NW019187; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 23:23:32 -0500 Message-ID: <4000CFC2.8040302@txc.com> Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 23:23:30 -0500 From: Alex Conta User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031208 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Margaret Wasserman CC: James Kempf , Alex Rousskov , mpowr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [mpowr] SUMMARY: Mailing List Management Discussion References: <020601c3d6fe$9a5513d0$606015ac@dclkempt40> <5.1.0.14.2.20040109064121.0427f9f8@ms101.mail1.com> <20040109181541.GA12092@1-4-5.net> <019b01c3d6f7$36ca0020$606015ac@dclkempt40> <020601c3d6fe$9a5513d0$606015ac@dclkempt40> <5.1.0.14.2.20040110134502.03860c10@ms101.mail1.com> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20040110134502.03860c10@ms101.mail1.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="------------ms070606040709030909060808" Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format. --------------ms070606040709030909060808 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Margaret, Thanks for the imaginary example. I wish you referred me to a real one - a mailing list archive for instance. It would have had more convincing power. In response, please consider a counter example - it is possible to imagine a similar scenario to yours in a company, large or small. How is this series of threats usually or legally dealt with? The supervisor refers the case to its manager, and Human Resources. They research the case, and take appropriate actions, which may include punishment, all the way to firing the perpetrator. One could say, that rights for such actions, including firing a perpetrator, should be given to the supervisor. But for employee protection against abuses, this is not done, and without being an expert, I believe labor laws are quite explicit and strict. The equivalence between supervisor-WG chair, manager-AD, HR-IESG is straight forward. Going back to your example, the threats should have been reacted appropriately by the AD; the AD has not done its job, so there were grounds for appropriate action against the AD. In conclusion, as I said before, I would have no problem with the mailing list removal power in the WG chairs hands, if the WG chair was only people and process manager. As long as that is not the case, I am really afraid that there is too much danger for abuse, in particular if WG consensus, plus very precise rules for measuring "disruptive behavior" are not required, and I would feel more comfortable, and I think it is easier to leave the rules the way they are - that power stays with the ADs, and the ADs are measured in doing their jobs in that respect. Regards, Alex Margaret Wasserman wrote: > > Hi Alex, > >> Realistically, I do not see the possibility, from a technical >> perspective, of X's messages considered disruptive, impeding on >> messages sent by the WG chairs to the list, and members of the list >> responding to the WG chairs, to measure consensus. Is there something >> that I am missing? > > > I'll give you an example... > > Let's say that a mailing list is being disrupted by one person (X) > issuing personal attacks and repeated threats against other WG > participants who disagree with him, both privately and on the list. > These could be threats of violence, threats of legal action, or > threats to contact that person's boss and report misconduct. I have > been on the receiving end of all three types of threats in my IETF > experience, so they do happen. In fact, one person did contact my > boss, but that's another story... > > The WG chair believes that X's repeated attacks and threats are > disrupting the WG mailing list by (1) intimidating some people > and/or making them reticent to express their views, (2) driving > away key contributors who are not willing to tolerate this type > of behaviour, (3) discouraging new people who might bring > energy and perspective to the group and/or (4) causing other > people to resort to abuse and threats in response. > > The reason she believes the four things outlined above is > that people have told her so -- in fact, two IAB or IESG > members who have provided valuable input in the past have > told her that they are no longer willing to follow her mailing > list because of the tone and the N/S ratio. The responsible > AD has told her two or three times that she needs to do > "something" to bring the mailing list under control. > > This may sound far fetched to you, but my understanding is that > this will sound familiar to people whose mailing lists have > been disrupted by this type of behaviour. > > The WG chair has asked X, privately, to modify his behaviour, > and her attempts were greeted with the expected insults and > threats. After a couple of private warnings, the WG chair > sent a message to the list, warning X that if he does not > change his behaviour, she will rescind his posting rights, > and X responded with an accusation that the chair has some > type of conflict of interest and should step down. No one > defended X. One person responded to X, defending the chair, > and X responded with threats. > > Now what? Do you really think that it would be useful for > the WG chair to make a consensus call (which usually takes > two weeks) on the WG mailing list before she revokes X's > posting privileges for 30 days? How would she interpret > the results? Should she somehow include the people who > are no longer reading the mailing list because of X's > antics? How does she count the people who are too > intimidated to respond publicly? > > In these cases, it is typically clear to everyone involved > what should happen. The WG chair should be able to do a > quick check with the AD and then do the right thing. > > I agree with your statements that the WG chair should not > be able to remove someone from the mailing list for holding > an opposing technical view, but I just can't believe (in > a system that requires AD approval and includes an appeal > process) that a WG chair could get away with doing that. > > Margaret > > [Disclaimer: The incidents described in this message are > fictional. Any resemblance to actual events or persons, > real or imaginary, is purely coincidental.] > > > > > --------------ms070606040709030909060808 Content-Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIINqDCC A2IwggLLoAMCAQICEAvaCxfBP4mOqwl0erTOLjMwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQECBQAwXzELMAkGA1UE BhMCVVMxFzAVBgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMTcwNQYDVQQLEy5DbGFzcyAxIFB1Ymxp YyBQcmltYXJ5IENlcnRpZmljYXRpb24gQXV0aG9yaXR5MB4XDTk4MDUxMjAwMDAwMFoXDTA4 MDUxMjIzNTk1OVowgcwxFzAVBgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMR8wHQYDVQQLExZWZXJp U2lnbiBUcnVzdCBOZXR3b3JrMUYwRAYDVQQLEz13d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3JlcG9zaXRv cnkvUlBBIEluY29ycC4gQnkgUmVmLixMSUFCLkxURChjKTk4MUgwRgYDVQQDEz9WZXJpU2ln biBDbGFzcyAxIENBIEluZGl2aWR1YWwgU3Vic2NyaWJlci1QZXJzb25hIE5vdCBWYWxpZGF0 ZWQwgZ8wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADgY0AMIGJAoGBALtaRIoEFrtV/QN6ii2UTxV4NrgNSrJv nFS/vOh3Kp258Gi7ldkxQXB6gUu5SBNWLccI4YRCq8CikqtEXKpC8IIOAukv+8I7u77JJwpd trA2QjO1blSIT4dKvxna+RXoD4e2HOPMxpqOf2okkuP84GW6p7F+78nbN2rISsgJBuSZAgMB AAGjgbAwga0wDwYDVR0TBAgwBgEB/wIBADBHBgNVHSAEQDA+MDwGC2CGSAGG+EUBBwEBMC0w KwYIKwYBBQUHAgEWH3d3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcmVwb3NpdG9yeS9SUEEwMQYDVR0fBCow KDAmoCSgIoYgaHR0cDovL2NybC52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcGNhMS5jcmwwCwYDVR0PBAQDAgEG MBEGCWCGSAGG+EIBAQQEAwIBBjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQIFAAOBgQACfZ5vRUs4oLje6VNkIbzk TCuPHv6SQKzYCjlqoTIhLAebq1n+0mIafVU4sDdz3PQHZmNiveFTcFKH56jYUulbLarh3s+s MVTUixnI2COo7wQrMn0sGBzIfImoLnfyRNFlCk10te7TG5JzdC6JOzUTcudAMZrTssSr51a+ i+P7FTCCBR0wggSGoAMCAQICEAxYaM16ATcjBamVuftCOMIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEEBQAwgcwx FzAVBgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMR8wHQYDVQQLExZWZXJpU2lnbiBUcnVzdCBOZXR3 b3JrMUYwRAYDVQQLEz13d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3JlcG9zaXRvcnkvUlBBIEluY29ycC4g QnkgUmVmLixMSUFCLkxURChjKTk4MUgwRgYDVQQDEz9WZXJpU2lnbiBDbGFzcyAxIENBIElu ZGl2aWR1YWwgU3Vic2NyaWJlci1QZXJzb25hIE5vdCBWYWxpZGF0ZWQwHhcNMDMxMDA3MDAw MDAwWhcNMDQxMDA2MjM1OTU5WjCCAQsxFzAVBgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMR8wHQYD VQQLExZWZXJpU2lnbiBUcnVzdCBOZXR3b3JrMUYwRAYDVQQLEz13d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29t L3JlcG9zaXRvcnkvUlBBIEluY29ycC4gYnkgUmVmLixMSUFCLkxURChjKTk4MR4wHAYDVQQL ExVQZXJzb25hIE5vdCBWYWxpZGF0ZWQxMzAxBgNVBAsTKkRpZ2l0YWwgSUQgQ2xhc3MgMSAt IE5ldHNjYXBlIEZ1bGwgU2VydmljZTETMBEGA1UEAxQKQWxleCBDb250YTEdMBsGCSqGSIb3 DQEJARYOYWNvbnRhQHR4Yy5jb20wggEiMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4IBDwAwggEKAoIBAQC4 Ft6Hpfel8VTHHZ+/IL7CrN4JZuNiEG0jbHIdZ6p4fIhVYpLiSK57oEE8WooVkMCwJxbd1kja BR8eLKwmMatpnaW661HjOjZaZaWHuj1k+/I7ZKcPKHHk2V++wAz5lIrJEYXm5Swbqq+wz3Xu zBt1K3gRU+5AIeBbxD1H5yOShhuS8KMD3xh7XIpNu8KufVCzWAbLcto/oBAaXH9iXrdZ/fRZ ibQhNldCYSHv8zHt8uYMUs5AlL8TTEsEsx+Zrfhr4/dZWmnCBVLyMxFX3apwUq4onjmAeDmn MOzxlqp5kO/FJlUK5KHPvNYMnkA75zLGfONTZmnsc7nybpMta3YVAgMBAAGjggE4MIIBNDAJ BgNVHRMEAjAAMIGsBgNVHSAEgaQwgaEwgZ4GC2CGSAGG+EUBBwEBMIGOMCgGCCsGAQUFBwIB FhxodHRwczovL3d3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vQ1BTMGIGCCsGAQUFBwICMFYwFRYOVmVyaVNp Z24sIEluYy4wAwIBARo9VmVyaVNpZ24ncyBDUFMgaW5jb3JwLiBieSByZWZlcmVuY2UgbGlh Yi4gbHRkLiAoYyk5NyBWZXJpU2lnbjARBglghkgBhvhCAQEEBAMCB4AwMAYKYIZIAYb4RQEG BwQiFiAyNTMxNjE3MDc0YTVhNTU3OTNjN2U4NDI2NjEyNTAyNjAzBgNVHR8ELDAqMCigJqAk hiJodHRwOi8vY3JsLnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9jbGFzczEuY3JsMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBAUAA4GB ALIvzgvKUG1MgnjGt+pKACDHwud9y2gSne3lNmmfl9wzLNsSH+32cSUyVgKoQQ0hxKslfgQd xiJQ5PAQPCc2bA6SKJTYiaBE0aWnqGpLTNN4OUKTX3KXEBsxrCP2Tzjj6cm1ghHl12Z8IF1n VRdwTiGeuDVhv0bHVRJkJyFt0tFOMIIFHTCCBIagAwIBAgIQDFhozXoBNyMFqZW5+0I4wjAN BgkqhkiG9w0BAQQFADCBzDEXMBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4xHzAdBgNVBAsTFlZl cmlTaWduIFRydXN0IE5ldHdvcmsxRjBEBgNVBAsTPXd3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcmVwb3Np dG9yeS9SUEEgSW5jb3JwLiBCeSBSZWYuLExJQUIuTFREKGMpOTgxSDBGBgNVBAMTP1ZlcmlT aWduIENsYXNzIDEgQ0EgSW5kaXZpZHVhbCBTdWJzY3JpYmVyLVBlcnNvbmEgTm90IFZhbGlk YXRlZDAeFw0wMzEwMDcwMDAwMDBaFw0wNDEwMDYyMzU5NTlaMIIBCzEXMBUGA1UEChMOVmVy aVNpZ24sIEluYy4xHzAdBgNVBAsTFlZlcmlTaWduIFRydXN0IE5ldHdvcmsxRjBEBgNVBAsT PXd3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcmVwb3NpdG9yeS9SUEEgSW5jb3JwLiBieSBSZWYuLExJQUIu TFREKGMpOTgxHjAcBgNVBAsTFVBlcnNvbmEgTm90IFZhbGlkYXRlZDEzMDEGA1UECxMqRGln aXRhbCBJRCBDbGFzcyAxIC0gTmV0c2NhcGUgRnVsbCBTZXJ2aWNlMRMwEQYDVQQDFApBbGV4 IENvbnRhMR0wGwYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFg5hY29udGFAdHhjLmNvbTCCASIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEB BQADggEPADCCAQoCggEBALgW3oel96XxVMcdn78gvsKs3glm42IQbSNsch1nqnh8iFVikuJI rnugQTxaihWQwLAnFt3WSNoFHx4srCYxq2mdpbrrUeM6NlplpYe6PWT78jtkpw8oceTZX77A DPmUiskRheblLBuqr7DPde7MG3UreBFT7kAh4FvEPUfnI5KGG5LwowPfGHtcik27wq59ULNY Bsty2j+gEBpcf2Jet1n99FmJtCE2V0JhIe/zMe3y5gxSzkCUvxNMSwSzH5mt+Gvj91laacIF UvIzEVfdqnBSriieOYB4Oacw7PGWqnmQ78UmVQrkoc+81gyeQDvnMsZ841NmaexzufJuky1r dhUCAwEAAaOCATgwggE0MAkGA1UdEwQCMAAwgawGA1UdIASBpDCBoTCBngYLYIZIAYb4RQEH AQEwgY4wKAYIKwYBBQUHAgEWHGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9DUFMwYgYIKwYB BQUHAgIwVjAVFg5WZXJpU2lnbiwgSW5jLjADAgEBGj1WZXJpU2lnbidzIENQUyBpbmNvcnAu IGJ5IHJlZmVyZW5jZSBsaWFiLiBsdGQuIChjKTk3IFZlcmlTaWduMBEGCWCGSAGG+EIBAQQE AwIHgDAwBgpghkgBhvhFAQYHBCIWIDI1MzE2MTcwNzRhNWE1NTc5M2M3ZTg0MjY2MTI1MDI2 MDMGA1UdHwQsMCowKKAmoCSGImh0dHA6Ly9jcmwudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL2NsYXNzMS5jcmww DQYJKoZIhvcNAQEEBQADgYEAsi/OC8pQbUyCeMa36koAIMfC533LaBKd7eU2aZ+X3DMs2xIf 7fZxJTJWAqhBDSHEqyV+BB3GIlDk8BA8JzZsDpIolNiJoETRpaeoaktM03g5QpNfcpcQGzGs I/ZPOOPpybWCEeXXZnwgXWdVF3BOIZ64NWG/RsdVEmQnIW3S0U4xggSqMIIEpgIBATCB4TCB zDEXMBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4xHzAdBgNVBAsTFlZlcmlTaWduIFRydXN0IE5l dHdvcmsxRjBEBgNVBAsTPXd3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcmVwb3NpdG9yeS9SUEEgSW5jb3Jw LiBCeSBSZWYuLExJQUIuTFREKGMpOTgxSDBGBgNVBAMTP1ZlcmlTaWduIENsYXNzIDEgQ0Eg SW5kaXZpZHVhbCBTdWJzY3JpYmVyLVBlcnNvbmEgTm90IFZhbGlkYXRlZAIQDFhozXoBNyMF qZW5+0I4wjAJBgUrDgMCGgUAoIICnTAYBgkqhkiG9w0BCQMxCwYJKoZIhvcNAQcBMBwGCSqG SIb3DQEJBTEPFw0wNDAxMTEwNDIzMzBaMCMGCSqGSIb3DQEJBDEWBBSxNe00E0t2M9nO1s7z /KlpBq/WZjBSBgkqhkiG9w0BCQ8xRTBDMAoGCCqGSIb3DQMHMA4GCCqGSIb3DQMCAgIAgDAN BggqhkiG9w0DAgIBQDAHBgUrDgMCBzANBggqhkiG9w0DAgIBKDCB8gYJKwYBBAGCNxAEMYHk MIHhMIHMMRcwFQYDVQQKEw5WZXJpU2lnbiwgSW5jLjEfMB0GA1UECxMWVmVyaVNpZ24gVHJ1 c3QgTmV0d29yazFGMEQGA1UECxM9d3d3LnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9yZXBvc2l0b3J5L1JQQSBJ bmNvcnAuIEJ5IFJlZi4sTElBQi5MVEQoYyk5ODFIMEYGA1UEAxM/VmVyaVNpZ24gQ2xhc3Mg MSBDQSBJbmRpdmlkdWFsIFN1YnNjcmliZXItUGVyc29uYSBOb3QgVmFsaWRhdGVkAhAMWGjN egE3IwWplbn7QjjCMIH0BgsqhkiG9w0BCRACCzGB5KCB4TCBzDEXMBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNp Z24sIEluYy4xHzAdBgNVBAsTFlZlcmlTaWduIFRydXN0IE5ldHdvcmsxRjBEBgNVBAsTPXd3 dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcmVwb3NpdG9yeS9SUEEgSW5jb3JwLiBCeSBSZWYuLExJQUIuTFRE KGMpOTgxSDBGBgNVBAMTP1ZlcmlTaWduIENsYXNzIDEgQ0EgSW5kaXZpZHVhbCBTdWJzY3Jp YmVyLVBlcnNvbmEgTm90IFZhbGlkYXRlZAIQDFhozXoBNyMFqZW5+0I4wjANBgkqhkiG9w0B AQEFAASCAQBTNokzsAHQ/spTe9XQNsMolXYa5SZoFyC6WB5BNVj/jBNC/HrTdU+rrlT5/FI3 Xen3fHRcBJgvh6lMzKZLY4vOH+cAGwpErh4U5HvJRjPizhTdUayAh6+SS95iHjC9kqx28PN5 BQxH5aUDqOIFEpZjMQGXpMTLTAEXcm8FOankhIcjPvrXLm0T5GnE9262ntDpTm9gHTwETvxF c1sH551avTsgprspdzqjZW1NF3sShSnRUXE5tx5FJwsfib1ZrjMA66d/ykUWHPmVicpDD0Bm j9Qf4krBXWMWzKgxhelEr3uFdE6t2/Oawo7vlQ/dxyYw7dOzx84+ali/CoVJgW0jAAAAAAAA --------------ms070606040709030909060808-- _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jan 11 01:01:00 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA04030 for ; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 01:01:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AfYeF-00088w-GM for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 01:00:31 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i0B60VhD031302 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 01:00:31 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AfYeF-00088n-96 for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 01:00:31 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA04013 for ; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 01:00:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AfYeC-0005HG-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 01:00:28 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AfYcO-0005Ca-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 00:58:36 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AfYap-00058i-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 00:56:59 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AfYar-00082E-3r; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 00:57:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AfYaN-00081f-FX for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 00:56:31 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA03946 for ; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 00:56:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AfYaK-00057f-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 00:56:28 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AfYYZ-00053j-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 00:54:39 -0500 Received: from transfire.txc.com ([208.5.237.254] helo=pguin2.txc.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AfYXl-0004zD-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 00:53:49 -0500 Received: from txc.com ([172.18.253.132]) by pguin2.txc.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id i0B5rl019955; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 00:53:47 -0500 Message-ID: <4000E4E9.8030903@txc.com> Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 00:53:45 -0500 From: Alex Conta User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031208 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: James Kempf CC: Alex Rousskov , mpowr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [mpowr] SUMMARY: Mailing List Management Discussion References: <5.1.0.14.2.20040109064121.0427f9f8@ms101.mail1.com> <20040109181541.GA12092@1-4-5.net> <019b01c3d6f7$36ca0020$606015ac@dclkempt40> <020601c3d6fe$9a5513d0$606015ac@dclkempt40> <4000449F.9020501@txc.com> <009201c3d7f1$29610460$a76015ac@dclkempt40> In-Reply-To: <009201c3d7f1$29610460$a76015ac@dclkempt40> Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="------------ms080507010403090604040207" Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format. --------------ms080507010403090604040207 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit James, James Kempf wrote: > Alex, > >>The principle of consensus stated by Alex is important, if the power is >>to be given to the WG chairs. >> > [...] these disruptive incidents. They have nothing to do with technical > differences of opinion, in fact, the disruptions don't involve technical > matters at all [...] What > happens is that the Working Group ceases to do any good technical work >([...] 6 months [...]) and essentially suffers irreperable damage. > Getting good technical > work out of a Working Group after a major distruption is almost impossible. Was this perhaps possible because of a particular (unfortunate) combination of people and process management skills between a WG chair and AD? > [...] but I believe that, in the > balance, a disruption that essentially destroys a Working Group's ability to > function effectively is more serious, because it is an attack on the basic > values of community-based decision making, and results in a large drain on > resources that the IETF cannot afford (and I mean that in both an > energy/motivation as well as a financial sense). Aren't ADs supposed to do their job, and be recalled if they do not? Is there also a theoretical possibility that an AD may not always want a WG or a WG chair succeed? > A disagreement between a > technical contributor and a Working Group chair in which the Working Group > chair abuses their power that is brought to an Area Director or appealed has > a high probability of succeding in removing the Working Group chair. > On the other hand, after a disruptive incident, it is almost > impossible to rescue the nuked Working Group. In the case which you've described, in the context of current rules, wasn't the job of the AD to act to protect the WG? From what you describe, it seems, that with all the implications of a "nuked WG", it was quite easy for an AD to ignore and not act at the abuse of the WG. You consider a high probability for the AD to protect an individual in a WG, and act against a WG chair abuse. I seriously doubt that high probability. It does not make sense, for a very simple and obvious reason: if it was easy for an AD to ignore the abuse of an entire WG by an individual, it will be much easier for an AD to ignore the abuse of an individual in a WG, by a WG chair. In concluding, I will say this again, the problem is simply the combination of roles and powers. I would not see a problem with WG chairs having the power over the mailing list, if the chair's role would be people and process management only. With WG chairs having technical roles, the mailing list power best stays IMO with the ADs, as it was and is now. Regards, Alex --------------ms080507010403090604040207 Content-Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIINqDCC A2IwggLLoAMCAQICEAvaCxfBP4mOqwl0erTOLjMwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQECBQAwXzELMAkGA1UE BhMCVVMxFzAVBgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMTcwNQYDVQQLEy5DbGFzcyAxIFB1Ymxp YyBQcmltYXJ5IENlcnRpZmljYXRpb24gQXV0aG9yaXR5MB4XDTk4MDUxMjAwMDAwMFoXDTA4 MDUxMjIzNTk1OVowgcwxFzAVBgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMR8wHQYDVQQLExZWZXJp U2lnbiBUcnVzdCBOZXR3b3JrMUYwRAYDVQQLEz13d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3JlcG9zaXRv cnkvUlBBIEluY29ycC4gQnkgUmVmLixMSUFCLkxURChjKTk4MUgwRgYDVQQDEz9WZXJpU2ln biBDbGFzcyAxIENBIEluZGl2aWR1YWwgU3Vic2NyaWJlci1QZXJzb25hIE5vdCBWYWxpZGF0 ZWQwgZ8wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADgY0AMIGJAoGBALtaRIoEFrtV/QN6ii2UTxV4NrgNSrJv nFS/vOh3Kp258Gi7ldkxQXB6gUu5SBNWLccI4YRCq8CikqtEXKpC8IIOAukv+8I7u77JJwpd trA2QjO1blSIT4dKvxna+RXoD4e2HOPMxpqOf2okkuP84GW6p7F+78nbN2rISsgJBuSZAgMB AAGjgbAwga0wDwYDVR0TBAgwBgEB/wIBADBHBgNVHSAEQDA+MDwGC2CGSAGG+EUBBwEBMC0w KwYIKwYBBQUHAgEWH3d3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcmVwb3NpdG9yeS9SUEEwMQYDVR0fBCow KDAmoCSgIoYgaHR0cDovL2NybC52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcGNhMS5jcmwwCwYDVR0PBAQDAgEG MBEGCWCGSAGG+EIBAQQEAwIBBjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQIFAAOBgQACfZ5vRUs4oLje6VNkIbzk TCuPHv6SQKzYCjlqoTIhLAebq1n+0mIafVU4sDdz3PQHZmNiveFTcFKH56jYUulbLarh3s+s MVTUixnI2COo7wQrMn0sGBzIfImoLnfyRNFlCk10te7TG5JzdC6JOzUTcudAMZrTssSr51a+ i+P7FTCCBR0wggSGoAMCAQICEAxYaM16ATcjBamVuftCOMIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEEBQAwgcwx FzAVBgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMR8wHQYDVQQLExZWZXJpU2lnbiBUcnVzdCBOZXR3 b3JrMUYwRAYDVQQLEz13d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3JlcG9zaXRvcnkvUlBBIEluY29ycC4g QnkgUmVmLixMSUFCLkxURChjKTk4MUgwRgYDVQQDEz9WZXJpU2lnbiBDbGFzcyAxIENBIElu ZGl2aWR1YWwgU3Vic2NyaWJlci1QZXJzb25hIE5vdCBWYWxpZGF0ZWQwHhcNMDMxMDA3MDAw MDAwWhcNMDQxMDA2MjM1OTU5WjCCAQsxFzAVBgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMR8wHQYD VQQLExZWZXJpU2lnbiBUcnVzdCBOZXR3b3JrMUYwRAYDVQQLEz13d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29t L3JlcG9zaXRvcnkvUlBBIEluY29ycC4gYnkgUmVmLixMSUFCLkxURChjKTk4MR4wHAYDVQQL ExVQZXJzb25hIE5vdCBWYWxpZGF0ZWQxMzAxBgNVBAsTKkRpZ2l0YWwgSUQgQ2xhc3MgMSAt IE5ldHNjYXBlIEZ1bGwgU2VydmljZTETMBEGA1UEAxQKQWxleCBDb250YTEdMBsGCSqGSIb3 DQEJARYOYWNvbnRhQHR4Yy5jb20wggEiMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4IBDwAwggEKAoIBAQC4 Ft6Hpfel8VTHHZ+/IL7CrN4JZuNiEG0jbHIdZ6p4fIhVYpLiSK57oEE8WooVkMCwJxbd1kja BR8eLKwmMatpnaW661HjOjZaZaWHuj1k+/I7ZKcPKHHk2V++wAz5lIrJEYXm5Swbqq+wz3Xu zBt1K3gRU+5AIeBbxD1H5yOShhuS8KMD3xh7XIpNu8KufVCzWAbLcto/oBAaXH9iXrdZ/fRZ ibQhNldCYSHv8zHt8uYMUs5AlL8TTEsEsx+Zrfhr4/dZWmnCBVLyMxFX3apwUq4onjmAeDmn MOzxlqp5kO/FJlUK5KHPvNYMnkA75zLGfONTZmnsc7nybpMta3YVAgMBAAGjggE4MIIBNDAJ BgNVHRMEAjAAMIGsBgNVHSAEgaQwgaEwgZ4GC2CGSAGG+EUBBwEBMIGOMCgGCCsGAQUFBwIB FhxodHRwczovL3d3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vQ1BTMGIGCCsGAQUFBwICMFYwFRYOVmVyaVNp Z24sIEluYy4wAwIBARo9VmVyaVNpZ24ncyBDUFMgaW5jb3JwLiBieSByZWZlcmVuY2UgbGlh Yi4gbHRkLiAoYyk5NyBWZXJpU2lnbjARBglghkgBhvhCAQEEBAMCB4AwMAYKYIZIAYb4RQEG BwQiFiAyNTMxNjE3MDc0YTVhNTU3OTNjN2U4NDI2NjEyNTAyNjAzBgNVHR8ELDAqMCigJqAk hiJodHRwOi8vY3JsLnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9jbGFzczEuY3JsMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBAUAA4GB ALIvzgvKUG1MgnjGt+pKACDHwud9y2gSne3lNmmfl9wzLNsSH+32cSUyVgKoQQ0hxKslfgQd xiJQ5PAQPCc2bA6SKJTYiaBE0aWnqGpLTNN4OUKTX3KXEBsxrCP2Tzjj6cm1ghHl12Z8IF1n VRdwTiGeuDVhv0bHVRJkJyFt0tFOMIIFHTCCBIagAwIBAgIQDFhozXoBNyMFqZW5+0I4wjAN BgkqhkiG9w0BAQQFADCBzDEXMBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4xHzAdBgNVBAsTFlZl cmlTaWduIFRydXN0IE5ldHdvcmsxRjBEBgNVBAsTPXd3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcmVwb3Np dG9yeS9SUEEgSW5jb3JwLiBCeSBSZWYuLExJQUIuTFREKGMpOTgxSDBGBgNVBAMTP1ZlcmlT aWduIENsYXNzIDEgQ0EgSW5kaXZpZHVhbCBTdWJzY3JpYmVyLVBlcnNvbmEgTm90IFZhbGlk YXRlZDAeFw0wMzEwMDcwMDAwMDBaFw0wNDEwMDYyMzU5NTlaMIIBCzEXMBUGA1UEChMOVmVy aVNpZ24sIEluYy4xHzAdBgNVBAsTFlZlcmlTaWduIFRydXN0IE5ldHdvcmsxRjBEBgNVBAsT PXd3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcmVwb3NpdG9yeS9SUEEgSW5jb3JwLiBieSBSZWYuLExJQUIu TFREKGMpOTgxHjAcBgNVBAsTFVBlcnNvbmEgTm90IFZhbGlkYXRlZDEzMDEGA1UECxMqRGln aXRhbCBJRCBDbGFzcyAxIC0gTmV0c2NhcGUgRnVsbCBTZXJ2aWNlMRMwEQYDVQQDFApBbGV4 IENvbnRhMR0wGwYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFg5hY29udGFAdHhjLmNvbTCCASIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEB BQADggEPADCCAQoCggEBALgW3oel96XxVMcdn78gvsKs3glm42IQbSNsch1nqnh8iFVikuJI rnugQTxaihWQwLAnFt3WSNoFHx4srCYxq2mdpbrrUeM6NlplpYe6PWT78jtkpw8oceTZX77A DPmUiskRheblLBuqr7DPde7MG3UreBFT7kAh4FvEPUfnI5KGG5LwowPfGHtcik27wq59ULNY Bsty2j+gEBpcf2Jet1n99FmJtCE2V0JhIe/zMe3y5gxSzkCUvxNMSwSzH5mt+Gvj91laacIF UvIzEVfdqnBSriieOYB4Oacw7PGWqnmQ78UmVQrkoc+81gyeQDvnMsZ841NmaexzufJuky1r dhUCAwEAAaOCATgwggE0MAkGA1UdEwQCMAAwgawGA1UdIASBpDCBoTCBngYLYIZIAYb4RQEH AQEwgY4wKAYIKwYBBQUHAgEWHGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9DUFMwYgYIKwYB BQUHAgIwVjAVFg5WZXJpU2lnbiwgSW5jLjADAgEBGj1WZXJpU2lnbidzIENQUyBpbmNvcnAu IGJ5IHJlZmVyZW5jZSBsaWFiLiBsdGQuIChjKTk3IFZlcmlTaWduMBEGCWCGSAGG+EIBAQQE AwIHgDAwBgpghkgBhvhFAQYHBCIWIDI1MzE2MTcwNzRhNWE1NTc5M2M3ZTg0MjY2MTI1MDI2 MDMGA1UdHwQsMCowKKAmoCSGImh0dHA6Ly9jcmwudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL2NsYXNzMS5jcmww DQYJKoZIhvcNAQEEBQADgYEAsi/OC8pQbUyCeMa36koAIMfC533LaBKd7eU2aZ+X3DMs2xIf 7fZxJTJWAqhBDSHEqyV+BB3GIlDk8BA8JzZsDpIolNiJoETRpaeoaktM03g5QpNfcpcQGzGs I/ZPOOPpybWCEeXXZnwgXWdVF3BOIZ64NWG/RsdVEmQnIW3S0U4xggSqMIIEpgIBATCB4TCB zDEXMBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4xHzAdBgNVBAsTFlZlcmlTaWduIFRydXN0IE5l dHdvcmsxRjBEBgNVBAsTPXd3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcmVwb3NpdG9yeS9SUEEgSW5jb3Jw LiBCeSBSZWYuLExJQUIuTFREKGMpOTgxSDBGBgNVBAMTP1ZlcmlTaWduIENsYXNzIDEgQ0Eg SW5kaXZpZHVhbCBTdWJzY3JpYmVyLVBlcnNvbmEgTm90IFZhbGlkYXRlZAIQDFhozXoBNyMF qZW5+0I4wjAJBgUrDgMCGgUAoIICnTAYBgkqhkiG9w0BCQMxCwYJKoZIhvcNAQcBMBwGCSqG SIb3DQEJBTEPFw0wNDAxMTEwNTUzNDVaMCMGCSqGSIb3DQEJBDEWBBSFDJ/pMlMnw2xQPhWB S+EyCccPNTBSBgkqhkiG9w0BCQ8xRTBDMAoGCCqGSIb3DQMHMA4GCCqGSIb3DQMCAgIAgDAN BggqhkiG9w0DAgIBQDAHBgUrDgMCBzANBggqhkiG9w0DAgIBKDCB8gYJKwYBBAGCNxAEMYHk MIHhMIHMMRcwFQYDVQQKEw5WZXJpU2lnbiwgSW5jLjEfMB0GA1UECxMWVmVyaVNpZ24gVHJ1 c3QgTmV0d29yazFGMEQGA1UECxM9d3d3LnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9yZXBvc2l0b3J5L1JQQSBJ bmNvcnAuIEJ5IFJlZi4sTElBQi5MVEQoYyk5ODFIMEYGA1UEAxM/VmVyaVNpZ24gQ2xhc3Mg MSBDQSBJbmRpdmlkdWFsIFN1YnNjcmliZXItUGVyc29uYSBOb3QgVmFsaWRhdGVkAhAMWGjN egE3IwWplbn7QjjCMIH0BgsqhkiG9w0BCRACCzGB5KCB4TCBzDEXMBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNp Z24sIEluYy4xHzAdBgNVBAsTFlZlcmlTaWduIFRydXN0IE5ldHdvcmsxRjBEBgNVBAsTPXd3 dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcmVwb3NpdG9yeS9SUEEgSW5jb3JwLiBCeSBSZWYuLExJQUIuTFRE KGMpOTgxSDBGBgNVBAMTP1ZlcmlTaWduIENsYXNzIDEgQ0EgSW5kaXZpZHVhbCBTdWJzY3Jp YmVyLVBlcnNvbmEgTm90IFZhbGlkYXRlZAIQDFhozXoBNyMFqZW5+0I4wjANBgkqhkiG9w0B AQEFAASCAQBS0zngjbppwBddm8FMWqnOJ+moI6ylXpxaykMiM/9MKW7DM1lFq6k8Q1j523LA vVD+S52QZB4bHBFfUd62jRzIDdvDtNyi+9FKT7Mt1aNmPTQs+89ZwXPtQGsNfpPhtvUbMTCU 9JA9caPOpIGjvYzjcCnN/U7FmAVjhlsLYN7gfL6jsnN94SUJ4Fgx/JhfpKnek6HNWOosGNrr 4o3pQOtNL4JFBvOwWASOOJSAAgnY4rxAgc3sAp3KYlEyon0uhSk76gIIqqK9yu4IzewTwMBP CyvrmRruMnqfmD7XEZvz4qmRNpHaG8TJnVW+eXes/E1y4oCxYSLz//8GswzoFIECAAAAAAAA --------------ms080507010403090604040207-- _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jan 11 07:47:37 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA25848 for ; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 07:47:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Afezk-0006Gc-97 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 07:47:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i0BCl8kr024084 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 07:47:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Afezk-0006GN-4h for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 07:47:08 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA25826 for ; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 07:47:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Afeze-0001bD-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 07:47:02 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AferS-0000d6-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 07:38:35 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AfemP-0000NZ-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 07:33:21 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Afem4-0005XD-PT; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 07:33:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Afel7-0005P3-UB for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 07:32:01 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA25571 for ; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 07:31:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Afekx-0000Ic-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 07:31:51 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AfeiG-0000Ff-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 07:29:05 -0500 Received: from sccrmhc13.comcast.net ([204.127.202.64]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Afeh2-0000De-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 07:27:48 -0500 Received: from dfnjgl21 (c-24-1-97-129.client.comcast.net[24.1.97.129]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc13) with SMTP id <2004011112265201600nqfqde> (Authid: sdawkins@comcast.net); Sun, 11 Jan 2004 12:26:52 +0000 Message-ID: <004e01c3d83e$41e69bb0$0400a8c0@DFNJGL21> Reply-To: "Spencer Dawkins" From: "Spencer Dawkins" To: References: <020601c3d6fe$9a5513d0$606015ac@dclkempt40> <5.1.0.14.2.20040109064121.0427f9f8@ms101.mail1.com> <20040109181541.GA12092@1-4-5.net> <019b01c3d6f7$36ca0020$606015ac@dclkempt40> <020601c3d6fe$9a5513d0$606015ac@dclkempt40> <5.1.0.14.2.20040110134502.03860c10@ms101.mail1.com> Subject: Re: [mpowr] SUMMARY: Mailing List Management Discussion Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 06:27:18 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Two points, and I'll try to be brief... The WG chair cannot prohibit WG participants from reading the mailing list, cannot prohibit WG participants from sending private e-mail to other WG participants ("can you believe what the WG chair has done now? please flame her on the mailing list for me if you disagree"), cannot prohibit WG participants from sending private e-mail to the responsible ADs or the IESG as a whole, and has to be pretty careful to notice WG participants who create new identities, subscribe to the mailing list, and say "I totally agree with BogonOne, and this is totally unfair and wrong" (see the ASRG mailing list archives before providing counterexamples). If any of these points were not true, I'd be very concerned about WG chairs booting posters. They are all true, so I'm not. I happen to like the idea of public notification that the WG chair is taking this action, including notification of both responsible ADs, but more process than this seems excessive to me. If the ADs don't care when WG chairs boot people they disagree with, more than once, more things are broken than mailing list management. And, having said this ... we're still talking about mailing list management. Is this the biggest problem WG chairs face today? Is this the biggest problem that WGs need empowering to deal with? If we were a working group, I'd ask for a consensus call so we could move on. Since we're not, I'm not sure WHAT the halting problem looks like... Spencer ----- Original Message ----- From: "Margaret Wasserman" To: "Alex Conta" Cc: "James Kempf" ; "Alex Rousskov" ; Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2004 1:14 PM Subject: Re: [mpowr] SUMMARY: Mailing List Management Discussion > > Hi Alex, > > >Realistically, I do not see the possibility, from a technical perspective, > >of X's messages considered disruptive, impeding on messages sent by the WG > >chairs to the list, and members of the list responding to the WG chairs, > >to measure consensus. Is there something that I am missing? > > I'll give you an example... > > Let's say that a mailing list is being disrupted by one person (X) > issuing personal attacks and repeated threats against other WG > participants who disagree with him, both privately and on the list. > These could be threats of violence, threats of legal action, or > threats to contact that person's boss and report misconduct. I have > been on the receiving end of all three types of threats in my IETF > experience, so they do happen. In fact, one person did contact my > boss, but that's another story... > > The WG chair believes that X's repeated attacks and threats are > disrupting the WG mailing list by (1) intimidating some people > and/or making them reticent to express their views, (2) driving > away key contributors who are not willing to tolerate this type > of behaviour, (3) discouraging new people who might bring > energy and perspective to the group and/or (4) causing other > people to resort to abuse and threats in response. > > The reason she believes the four things outlined above is > that people have told her so -- in fact, two IAB or IESG > members who have provided valuable input in the past have > told her that they are no longer willing to follow her mailing > list because of the tone and the N/S ratio. The responsible > AD has told her two or three times that she needs to do > "something" to bring the mailing list under control. > > This may sound far fetched to you, but my understanding is that > this will sound familiar to people whose mailing lists have > been disrupted by this type of behaviour. > > The WG chair has asked X, privately, to modify his behaviour, > and her attempts were greeted with the expected insults and > threats. After a couple of private warnings, the WG chair > sent a message to the list, warning X that if he does not > change his behaviour, she will rescind his posting rights, > and X responded with an accusation that the chair has some > type of conflict of interest and should step down. No one > defended X. One person responded to X, defending the chair, > and X responded with threats. > > Now what? Do you really think that it would be useful for > the WG chair to make a consensus call (which usually takes > two weeks) on the WG mailing list before she revokes X's > posting privileges for 30 days? How would she interpret > the results? Should she somehow include the people who > are no longer reading the mailing list because of X's > antics? How does she count the people who are too > intimidated to respond publicly? > > In these cases, it is typically clear to everyone involved > what should happen. The WG chair should be able to do a > quick check with the AD and then do the right thing. > > I agree with your statements that the WG chair should not > be able to remove someone from the mailing list for holding > an opposing technical view, but I just can't believe (in > a system that requires AD approval and includes an appeal > process) that a WG chair could get away with doing that. > > Margaret > > [Disclaimer: The incidents described in this message are > fictional. Any resemblance to actual events or persons, > real or imaginary, is purely coincidental.] > > > > > _______________________________________________ > mpowr mailing list > mpowr@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jan 11 08:03:10 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA27714 for ; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 08:03:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AffEn-0007TF-16 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 08:02:41 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i0BD2eZa028693 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 08:02:40 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AffEm-0007S8-Os for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 08:02:40 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA27656 for ; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 08:02:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AffEl-0003fv-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 08:02:39 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AffCw-0003ZG-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 08:00:47 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AffBF-0003Rp-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 07:59:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AffBF-0006xe-Ed; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 07:59:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AffB1-0006wa-Bt for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 07:58:47 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA27467 for ; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 07:58:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AffB0-0003Pu-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 07:58:46 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aff9A-0003Fp-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 07:56:55 -0500 Received: from smtp.exodus.net ([66.35.230.237] helo=smtp02-w.exodus.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aff5f-0002GL-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 07:53:15 -0500 Received: from ms101.mail1.com (ms101.mail1.com [209.1.5.174]) by smtp02-w.exodus.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0BA3LEv004310 for ; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 04:03:22 -0600 Received: from ala-mrwtemp.thingmagic.com (unverified [24.61.30.237]) by accounting.espmail.com (Rockliffe SMTPRA 5.2.5) with ESMTP id ; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 04:52:41 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040111072407.0288f760@ms101.mail1.com> X-Sender: margaret@thingmagic.com@ms101.mail1.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 07:40:59 -0500 To: Alex Conta From: Margaret Wasserman Subject: Re: [mpowr] SUMMARY: Mailing List Management Discussion Cc: James Kempf , Alex Rousskov , mpowr@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <4000CFC2.8040302@txc.com> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20040110134502.03860c10@ms101.mail1.com> <020601c3d6fe$9a5513d0$606015ac@dclkempt40> <5.1.0.14.2.20040109064121.0427f9f8@ms101.mail1.com> <20040109181541.GA12092@1-4-5.net> <019b01c3d6f7$36ca0020$606015ac@dclkempt40> <020601c3d6fe$9a5513d0$606015ac@dclkempt40> <5.1.0.14.2.20040110134502.03860c10@ms101.mail1.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 >Thanks for the imaginary example. I wish you referred me to a real one - a >mailing list archive for instance. It would have had more convincing power. Try the IPR WG archive. The IESG chose to rescind Todd Glassey's posting privileges because of Todd's postings to that list and some private mail that he sent in response to others' posts to the list. Because Todd chose to appeal the decision, the situation is fairly well-documented in the IESG's response to Todd's appeal, which can be found at: http://www.ietf.org/IESG/APPEALS/iesg_todd_glassey.txt Please note, though, that my example was not the Todd Glassey case in disguise. I don't personal recall enough the details of that case to say what warnings were given to whom when and/or how people responded, etc. I don't personally know of any other case where it was necessary to revoke posting privileges... As interesting as the exchanges on the IPv6 WG mailing list have occasionally been, most people have kept their disagreement (even vehement ones) well within the bounds of professional behaviour. And everyone who has strayed from those bounds has always modified his or her behaviour, even apologizing in some cases, after a private warning from the WG chairs, so no further action has been warranted. >How is this series of threats usually or legally dealt with? The >supervisor refers the case to its manager, and Human Resources. They >research the case, and take appropriate actions, which may include >punishment, all the way to firing the perpetrator. Have you ever been involved in a situation where one person in a company was threatening another? I have, and the company did not engage in a lengthy process to "investigate" before taking action. The person making the threat was escorted to HR by security within minutes of making the threat (which was not against me, BTW) and I never saw him again. I have a friend who was involved (as the manager) in a similar situation at another company, and exactly the same procedure was followed. In this type of case, I believe that the AD can act as "HR", it doesn't require the full IESG. >In conclusion, as I said before, I would have no problem with the mailing >list removal power in the WG chairs hands, if the WG chair was only people >and process manager. I think that we will just have to accept our disagreement on this point. Personally, I don't believe that we could find ~230 people in the IETF would take a non-technical WG management role, so I don't believe it is practical to pursue the approach that you are recommending. Margaret _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jan 11 08:03:12 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA27731 for ; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 08:03:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AffEp-0007ZG-Eb for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 08:02:43 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i0BD2hwP029084 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 08:02:43 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AffEp-0007Z1-9T for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 08:02:43 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA27669 for ; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 08:02:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AffEo-0003gF-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 08:02:42 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AffD0-0003Zv-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 08:00:50 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AffBI-0003Rt-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 07:59:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AffBF-0006yC-Mn; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 07:59:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AffB2-0006wf-5Q for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 07:58:48 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA27470 for ; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 07:58:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AffB1-0003Pz-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 07:58:47 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aff9B-0003Fz-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 07:56:53 -0500 Received: from smtp.exodus.net ([66.35.230.237] helo=smtp02-w.exodus.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aff5f-0002GM-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 07:53:15 -0500 Received: from ms101.mail1.com (ms101.mail1.com [209.1.5.174]) by smtp02-w.exodus.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0BA3MEv004314 for ; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 04:03:22 -0600 Received: from ala-mrwtemp.thingmagic.com (unverified [24.61.30.237]) by accounting.espmail.com (Rockliffe SMTPRA 5.2.5) with ESMTP id ; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 04:52:42 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040111074241.03867270@ms101.mail1.com> X-Sender: margaret@thingmagic.com@ms101.mail1.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 07:50:54 -0500 To: "Spencer Dawkins" From: Margaret Wasserman Subject: Re: [mpowr] SUMMARY: Mailing List Management Discussion Cc: In-Reply-To: <004e01c3d83e$41e69bb0$0400a8c0@DFNJGL21> References: <020601c3d6fe$9a5513d0$606015ac@dclkempt40> <5.1.0.14.2.20040109064121.0427f9f8@ms101.mail1.com> <20040109181541.GA12092@1-4-5.net> <019b01c3d6f7$36ca0020$606015ac@dclkempt40> <020601c3d6fe$9a5513d0$606015ac@dclkempt40> <5.1.0.14.2.20040110134502.03860c10@ms101.mail1.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Hi Spencer, >And, having said this ... we're still talking about mailing list >management. Is this the biggest problem WG chairs face today? Is this >the biggest problem that WGs need empowering to deal with? While I don't think that this is the biggest problem, it may be one of the more tractable ones. >If we were a working group, I'd ask for a consensus call so we could >move on. Since we're not, I'm not sure WHAT the halting problem looks >like... Since we're not a WG, and I'm the closest thing that we have (for the moment anyway) to a WG moderator, I already made the consensus call -- we seem to have rough consensus on this list that WG chairs should be able to temporarily revoke the posting privileges of disruptive individuals with AD approval and the possibility of appeal. Alex's dissenting opinion was already noted in the consensus determination, so his clarification of his opinion hasn't changed it. I would like to hear opinions from those who have not expressed an opinion, if they have any thoughts on this topic. We're not a WG yet, so we can't have WG documents, etc... If we did, we'd have a chair, and I'd hope that chair would be appointing someone to write our thoughts up in a WG draft. In the meantime, it would be good to get an individual draft that we can tune through Seoul and discuss at a BOF there (presumably the same BOF where we try to figure out if a WG is needed in this area). Do you want to take a shot at it? What other things do we think that an MPOWR WG could/should do? Margaret _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jan 11 14:05:31 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA10820 for ; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 14:05:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AfktT-0005nU-Az for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 14:05:03 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i0BJ53Du022272 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 14:05:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AfktS-0005ml-11 for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 14:05:02 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA10721 for ; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 14:04:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AfktP-0006l4-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 14:04:59 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Afkrk-0006g4-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 14:03:17 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AfkqV-0006ZI-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 14:01:59 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AfkqW-0005hP-V2; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 14:02:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Afkpk-0005fw-2A for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 14:01:12 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA10535 for ; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 14:01:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Afkph-0006XM-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 14:01:09 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Afko1-0006QX-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 13:59:26 -0500 Received: from key1.docomolabs-usa.com ([216.98.102.225] helo=fridge.docomolabs-usa.com ident=fwuser) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Afkn6-0006IL-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 13:58:28 -0500 Message-ID: <00a301c3d874$f42e5930$616015ac@dclkempt40> From: "James Kempf" To: "Alex Conta" Cc: "Alex Rousskov" , References: <5.1.0.14.2.20040109064121.0427f9f8@ms101.mail1.com> <20040109181541.GA12092@1-4-5.net> <019b01c3d6f7$36ca0020$606015ac@dclkempt40> <020601c3d6fe$9a5513d0$606015ac@dclkempt40> <4000449F.9020501@txc.com> <009201c3d7f1$29610460$a76015ac@dclkempt40> <4000E4E9.8030903@txc.com> Subject: Re: [mpowr] SUMMARY: Mailing List Management Discussion Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 10:23:05 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Alex, > >>The principle of consensus stated by Alex is important, if the power is > >>to be given to the WG chairs. > >> > > [...] these disruptive incidents. They have nothing to do with technical > > differences of opinion, in fact, the disruptions don't involve technical > > matters at all [...] What > > happens is that the Working Group ceases to do any good technical work > >([...] 6 months [...]) and essentially suffers irreperable damage. > > Getting good technical > > work out of a Working Group after a major distruption is almost impossible. > > Was this perhaps possible because of a particular (unfortunate) > combination of people and process management skills between a WG chair > and AD? > No, it happened because the disruptor was trying to intimidate the Working Group chairs and AD so that they would form a design team including the distruptor in order that the disruptor would get their name on a Standards Track draft. The disruptor did this by publically discrediting the Working Group chairs and AD on the mailing list, including the charges of conflict of interest Margaret mentioned, and privately sending threads of violence. It isn't the AD's and the WG chair's fault. They're acting in good faith, trying to resolve the problem by reasoning with the disruptor both in public and private, etc. > > [...] but I believe that, in the > > balance, a disruption that essentially destroys a Working Group's ability to > > function effectively is more serious, because it is an attack on the basic > > values of community-based decision making, and results in a large drain on > > resources that the IETF cannot afford (and I mean that in both an > > energy/motivation as well as a financial sense). > > Aren't ADs supposed to do their job, and be recalled if they do not? > Is there also a theoretical possibility that an AD may not always want a > WG or a WG chair succeed? > Alex, an AD can't remove someone today. It requires the entire IESG to agree according to 2026. It only takes one IESG member to block removing someone, plus given the IESG's busy schedule, the topic might not get on the agenda for a month, at which point, the Working Group may be so far gone that it isn't salvagable. Typically what happens in a case like this is that the AD whose Working Group is under attack goes to the IESG with the management problem, but the other ADs don't see the problem because they aren't involved in it, so they cite the need to remain open, etc. when the AD who has the problem is being publically disparaged on the Working Group list, while perhaps privately fearing for their bodily safety due to possible threats, and watching their Working Group get nuked; all while trying to reason with someone who is simply beyond reason. > > A disagreement between a > > technical contributor and a Working Group chair in which the Working Group > > chair abuses their power that is brought to an Area Director or appealed has > > a high probability of succeding in removing the Working Group chair. > > On the other hand, after a disruptive incident, it is almost > > impossible to rescue the nuked Working Group. > > In the case which you've described, in the context of current rules, > wasn't the job of the AD to act to protect the WG? > I'm not sure what case you mean. The case of a chair abusing their power to shut down an alternative voice? > From what you describe, it seems, that with all the implications of a > "nuked WG", it was quite easy for an AD to ignore and not act at the > abuse of the WG. > No, I don't think so. In the case of a WG chair attempting to abuse their power, if the victim goes to the AD, they aren't attempting to personally attack the chair and AD, they are trying to point up a process violation. That's a huge difference. The mailing list log is going to show a series of carefully reasoned emails by the victim on the technical topic under dispute, and perhaps at the end a few emotional ones by the chair telling the victim to shut up or declaring phony concensus for the WG chair's opinion, with the victim at the end perhaps saying that they are going to take the case to the AD and maybe appeal. Perhaps there are even a few from other Working Group members supporting the victim's technical opinion. In contrast, in a nuclear attack, the mailing list will show an increasingly emotional series of notes from the disruptor that have nothing to do with technical matters, and a series from the Working Group chair and AD that are attempting to reason with the disruptor, perhaps terminated by emails from the chair or AD warning the disruptor to stop. There are rarely any supporting emails in this case, and there even might be a few from other working group members telling the distruptor to stop. So if the victim of a Working Group power abuse case goes to the AD after the Working Group chair has declared phony concensus, the AD should be able to see what is going on from the email trail. It should be pretty easy at that point for the AD to either speak to the chair to reopen the issue, or if the abuse is ongoing to remove the chair. If the AD doesn't take any action, the victim can appeal and for sure the victim should let the Nomcom know when election time happens. > You consider a high probability for the AD to protect an individual in a > WG, and act against a WG chair abuse. > > I seriously doubt that high probability. It does not make sense, for a > very simple and obvious reason: > > if it was easy for an AD to ignore the abuse of an entire WG by an > individual, it will be much easier for an AD to ignore the abuse of an > individual in a WG, by a WG chair. > I'm not sure I understand your point. In the case of a disruptor, the AD isn't ignoring the abuse, (s)he is usually trying to get the person calmed down and quiet so technical work can continue. In the case of abuse of power by a chair, if the AD doesn't agree, its possible that its the ADs fault, and it is also possible that it isn't. That's why the appeals process and Nomcom are there. Some appeals are upheld by the IESG upon reexamination. > In concluding, I will say this again, the problem is simply the > combination of roles and powers. I would not see a problem with WG > chairs having the power over the mailing list, if the chair's role would > be people and process management only. With WG chairs having technical > roles, the mailing list power best stays IMO with the ADs, as it was and > is now. > I agree there needs to be a re-examination of the WG chair's role, I'm not sure I agree with just making it a process one however, since I think it might make it hard to recruit WG chairs. The mpowr draft has a few suggestions which move in the direction of limiting the WG chair's involvement in technical matters, but I think that should be a topic for discussion in another thread. jak _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jan 11 14:07:08 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA10969 for ; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 14:07:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Afkv2-0005pS-R1 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 14:06:40 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i0BJ6eo6022400 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 14:06:40 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Afkv2-0005pD-Ld for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 14:06:40 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA10921 for ; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 14:06:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Afkv0-0006pY-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 14:06:38 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Afkt9-0006j5-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 14:04:43 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AfkrS-0006dV-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 14:02:58 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AfkrU-0005kB-Ev; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 14:03:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Afkr7-0005jg-6S for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 14:02:37 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA10550 for ; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 14:02:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Afkr4-0006aN-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 14:02:34 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Afkp8-0006SI-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 14:00:35 -0500 Received: from key1.docomolabs-usa.com ([216.98.102.225] helo=fridge.docomolabs-usa.com ident=fwuser) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AfknD-0006JL-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 13:58:35 -0500 Message-ID: <00a501c3d874$f9f70fb0$616015ac@dclkempt40> From: "James Kempf" To: "Spencer Dawkins" , "Margaret Wasserman" Cc: References: <020601c3d6fe$9a5513d0$606015ac@dclkempt40> <5.1.0.14.2.20040109064121.0427f9f8@ms101.mail1.com> <20040109181541.GA12092@1-4-5.net> <019b01c3d6f7$36ca0020$606015ac@dclkempt40> <020601c3d6fe$9a5513d0$606015ac@dclkempt40> <5.1.0.14.2.20040110134502.03860c10@ms101.mail1.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20040111074241.03867270@ms101.mail1.com> Subject: Re: [mpowr] SUMMARY: Mailing List Management Discussion Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 10:30:16 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > What other things do we think that an MPOWR WG could/should do? > I think we need to have a discussion about how to get bad ideas to fail early and what is the role of the WG chair and document editor in general. jak _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jan 11 14:53:14 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA10821 for ; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 14:05:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AfktT-0005nR-Ab for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 14:05:03 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i0BJ530o022271 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 14:05:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AfktS-0005mw-Rw for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 14:05:02 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA10724 for ; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 14:05:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AfktQ-0006l9-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 14:05:00 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Afkrl-0006gC-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 14:03:19 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AfkqV-0006ZJ-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 14:01:59 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AfkqX-0005hX-4v; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 14:02:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Afkpm-0005g2-L3 for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 14:01:14 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA10540 for ; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 14:01:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Afkpk-0006Xg-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 14:01:12 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Afko3-0006Qv-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 13:59:28 -0500 Received: from key1.docomolabs-usa.com ([216.98.102.225] helo=fridge.docomolabs-usa.com ident=fwuser) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AfknA-0006IP-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 13:58:32 -0500 Message-ID: <00a401c3d874$f71e4d30$616015ac@dclkempt40> From: "James Kempf" To: "Spencer Dawkins" , References: <020601c3d6fe$9a5513d0$606015ac@dclkempt40> <5.1.0.14.2.20040109064121.0427f9f8@ms101.mail1.com> <20040109181541.GA12092@1-4-5.net> <019b01c3d6f7$36ca0020$606015ac@dclkempt40> <020601c3d6fe$9a5513d0$606015ac@dclkempt40> <5.1.0.14.2.20040110134502.03860c10@ms101.mail1.com> <004e01c3d83e$41e69bb0$0400a8c0@DFNJGL21> Subject: Re: [mpowr] SUMMARY: Mailing List Management Discussion Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 10:26:51 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Spencer, Mailing list management is not the biggest problem, but to the extent that a disruption attack fatally damages a WG that then continues to limp along while producing little of technical value, it is an enormous drain on IETF resources. After a successful attack, the IESG might as well simply disband the WG. Getting this particular problem fixed will go a long way toward making sure that WGs have a higher probability of succeding. jak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Spencer Dawkins" To: Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2004 4:27 AM Subject: Re: [mpowr] SUMMARY: Mailing List Management Discussion > Two points, and I'll try to be brief... > > The WG chair cannot prohibit WG participants from reading the mailing > list, cannot prohibit WG participants from sending private e-mail to > other WG participants ("can you believe what the WG chair has done > now? please flame her on the mailing list for me if you disagree"), > cannot prohibit WG participants from sending private e-mail to the > responsible ADs or the IESG as a whole, and has to be pretty careful > to notice WG participants who create new identities, subscribe to the > mailing list, and say "I totally agree with BogonOne, and this is > totally unfair and wrong" (see the ASRG mailing list archives before > providing counterexamples). > > If any of these points were not true, I'd be very concerned about WG > chairs booting posters. They are all true, so I'm not. I happen to > like the idea of public notification that the WG chair is taking this > action, including notification of both responsible ADs, but more > process than this seems excessive to me. If the ADs don't care when WG > chairs boot people they disagree with, more than once, more things are > broken than mailing list management. > > And, having said this ... we're still talking about mailing list > management. Is this the biggest problem WG chairs face today? Is this > the biggest problem that WGs need empowering to deal with? > > If we were a working group, I'd ask for a consensus call so we could > move on. Since we're not, I'm not sure WHAT the halting problem looks > like... > > Spencer > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Margaret Wasserman" > To: "Alex Conta" > Cc: "James Kempf" ; "Alex Rousskov" > ; > Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2004 1:14 PM > Subject: Re: [mpowr] SUMMARY: Mailing List Management Discussion > > > > > > Hi Alex, > > > > >Realistically, I do not see the possibility, from a technical > perspective, > > >of X's messages considered disruptive, impeding on messages sent by > the WG > > >chairs to the list, and members of the list responding to the WG > chairs, > > >to measure consensus. Is there something that I am missing? > > > > I'll give you an example... > > > > Let's say that a mailing list is being disrupted by one person (X) > > issuing personal attacks and repeated threats against other WG > > participants who disagree with him, both privately and on the list. > > These could be threats of violence, threats of legal action, or > > threats to contact that person's boss and report misconduct. I have > > been on the receiving end of all three types of threats in my IETF > > experience, so they do happen. In fact, one person did contact my > > boss, but that's another story... > > > > The WG chair believes that X's repeated attacks and threats are > > disrupting the WG mailing list by (1) intimidating some people > > and/or making them reticent to express their views, (2) driving > > away key contributors who are not willing to tolerate this type > > of behaviour, (3) discouraging new people who might bring > > energy and perspective to the group and/or (4) causing other > > people to resort to abuse and threats in response. > > > > The reason she believes the four things outlined above is > > that people have told her so -- in fact, two IAB or IESG > > members who have provided valuable input in the past have > > told her that they are no longer willing to follow her mailing > > list because of the tone and the N/S ratio. The responsible > > AD has told her two or three times that she needs to do > > "something" to bring the mailing list under control. > > > > This may sound far fetched to you, but my understanding is that > > this will sound familiar to people whose mailing lists have > > been disrupted by this type of behaviour. > > > > The WG chair has asked X, privately, to modify his behaviour, > > and her attempts were greeted with the expected insults and > > threats. After a couple of private warnings, the WG chair > > sent a message to the list, warning X that if he does not > > change his behaviour, she will rescind his posting rights, > > and X responded with an accusation that the chair has some > > type of conflict of interest and should step down. No one > > defended X. One person responded to X, defending the chair, > > and X responded with threats. > > > > Now what? Do you really think that it would be useful for > > the WG chair to make a consensus call (which usually takes > > two weeks) on the WG mailing list before she revokes X's > > posting privileges for 30 days? How would she interpret > > the results? Should she somehow include the people who > > are no longer reading the mailing list because of X's > > antics? How does she count the people who are too > > intimidated to respond publicly? > > > > In these cases, it is typically clear to everyone involved > > what should happen. The WG chair should be able to do a > > quick check with the AD and then do the right thing. > > > > I agree with your statements that the WG chair should not > > be able to remove someone from the mailing list for holding > > an opposing technical view, but I just can't believe (in > > a system that requires AD approval and includes an appeal > > process) that a WG chair could get away with doing that. > > > > Margaret > > > > [Disclaimer: The incidents described in this message are > > fictional. Any resemblance to actual events or persons, > > real or imaginary, is purely coincidental.] > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > mpowr mailing list > > mpowr@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr > > > _______________________________________________ > mpowr mailing list > mpowr@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr > _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jan 11 16:52:48 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA17970 for ; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 16:52:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AfnVM-0003Ql-Of for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 16:52:20 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i0BLqKbd013188 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 16:52:20 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AfnVC-0003QW-Bf for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 16:52:20 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA17955 for ; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 16:52:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AfnV5-0006Ww-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 16:52:03 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AfnQS-0006ME-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 16:47:18 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AfnLg-0006D5-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 16:42:20 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AfnLN-0003Ax-CD; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 16:42:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AfnKf-0003Ah-Ip for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 16:41:17 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA17739 for ; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 16:41:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AfnKT-0006Ag-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 16:41:05 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AfnHE-00064C-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 16:37:44 -0500 Received: from smtp.exodus.net ([66.35.230.236]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AfnDG-0005wh-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 16:33:38 -0500 Received: from ms101.mail1.com (ms101.mail1.com [209.1.5.174]) by smtp.exodus.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0BNCVw3028091 for ; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 15:12:31 -0800 Received: from ala-mrwtemp.thingmagic.com (unverified [24.61.30.237]) by accounting.espmail.com (Rockliffe SMTPRA 5.2.5) with ESMTP id ; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 13:32:42 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040111162237.0368d9b8@ms101.mail1.com> X-Sender: margaret@thingmagic.com@ms101.mail1.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 16:24:06 -0500 To: "James Kempf" From: Margaret Wasserman Cc: "Spencer Dawkins" , In-Reply-To: <00a501c3d874$f9f70fb0$616015ac@dclkempt40> References: <020601c3d6fe$9a5513d0$606015ac@dclkempt40> <5.1.0.14.2.20040109064121.0427f9f8@ms101.mail1.com> <20040109181541.GA12092@1-4-5.net> <019b01c3d6f7$36ca0020$606015ac@dclkempt40> <020601c3d6fe$9a5513d0$606015ac@dclkempt40> <5.1.0.14.2.20040110134502.03860c10@ms101.mail1.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20040111074241.03867270@ms101.mail1.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [mpowr] Getting Bad Ideas to Fail Early Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Hi James, >I think we need to have a discussion about how to get bad ideas to fail >early... What are your thoughts on how to do this? I've heard a number of people discuss revisions to the WG creation, chartering, re-chartering and milestone processes that might help in this area. Are those the types of changes that you are proposing, or do you have other ideas? Margaret _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jan 11 16:59:49 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA18169 for ; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 16:59:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Afnc9-0003YB-Ok for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 16:59:21 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i0BLxLHA013641 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 16:59:21 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Afnc9-0003Xw-K0 for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 16:59:21 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA18154 for ; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 16:59:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Afnc2-0006nO-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 16:59:14 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AfnVu-0006Za-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 16:52:55 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AfnRU-0006Ne-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 16:48:20 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AfnRB-0003KK-Ge; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 16:48:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AfnQb-0003K6-1z for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 16:47:25 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA17869 for ; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 16:47:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AfnQO-0006L9-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 16:47:13 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AfnL6-0006Ck-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 16:41:44 -0500 Received: from smtp.exodus.net ([66.35.230.236]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AfnIP-00064h-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 16:38:57 -0500 Received: from ms101.mail1.com (ms101.mail1.com [209.1.5.174]) by smtp.exodus.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0BNI6w3028192 for ; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 15:18:06 -0800 Received: from ala-mrwtemp.thingmagic.com (unverified [24.61.30.237]) by accounting.espmail.com (Rockliffe SMTPRA 5.2.5) with ESMTP id ; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 13:38:16 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040111162422.036d4d58@ms101.mail1.com> X-Sender: margaret@thingmagic.com@ms101.mail1.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 16:36:29 -0500 To: "James Kempf" From: Margaret Wasserman Subject: Re: [mpowr] SUMMARY: Mailing List Management Discussion Cc: In-Reply-To: <00a501c3d874$f9f70fb0$616015ac@dclkempt40> References: <020601c3d6fe$9a5513d0$606015ac@dclkempt40> <5.1.0.14.2.20040109064121.0427f9f8@ms101.mail1.com> <20040109181541.GA12092@1-4-5.net> <019b01c3d6f7$36ca0020$606015ac@dclkempt40> <020601c3d6fe$9a5513d0$606015ac@dclkempt40> <5.1.0.14.2.20040110134502.03860c10@ms101.mail1.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20040111074241.03867270@ms101.mail1.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 >I think we need to have a discussion about... what is the role of >the WG chair and document editor in general. I agree. I've been quite active in three IETF areas (INT, OPS and GEN), I've been a WG chair for several years, I have been teaching WG chairs training for a couple of years now, and I am now on the IESG. This has given me a lot of exposure to WG chairs throughout the IETF, and given me an opportunity to discuss the WG chair role with many WG chairs and other participants. The more time I have spent on this topic, the clearer it has become that we have little common understanding/consensus in the IETF about what the role of a WG chair is today, never mind what we think it should be... I believe that the role of the document editor/author is similarly vague and poorly understood. One of the problems that we identified in the Problem Statement was that IETF participants and leaders are inadequately prepared for their roles, but I think it goes far deeper than that. We don't have well-enough defined roles that it is possible to prepare people for them. The roles are largely defined by the people who fill them, and are constantly changing based on who is filling other related roles. This type of charismatic organization (which can less flatteringly be called a "cult of personality") works really well for a small, highly focused group of people who share common goals (like the early IETF or a start-up company), and really breaks down as the group grows and experiences an influx of people with different experiences and views (like the IETF of today). So, personally, I believe that whether or not we decided to change the roles of WG chairs and authors/editors, we do need to better formalize and document the IETF leadership roles -- most notably the WG chair and document author/editor roles, because those roles involve so many people and there is so little clarity about those roles today. What do others think? Margaret _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jan 11 19:57:38 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA24683 for ; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:57:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AfqOD-0001K9-Qd for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:57:09 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i0C0v9qS005084 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:57:09 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AfqOD-0001Jv-M3 for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:57:09 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA24650 for ; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:57:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AfqOB-0006Ri-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:57:07 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AfqMf-0006LB-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:55:33 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AfqKQ-0006Dj-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:53:14 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AfqKD-0001Dg-8f; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:53:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AfqJZ-0001D7-Fg for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:52:31 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA24543 for ; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:52:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AfqJS-0006C8-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:52:14 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AfqEp-00064M-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:47:28 -0500 Received: from key1.docomolabs-usa.com ([216.98.102.225] helo=fridge.docomolabs-usa.com ident=fwuser) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AfqB6-0005vz-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:43:36 -0500 Message-ID: <006401c3d8a5$25f4ceb0$606015ac@dclkempt40> From: "James Kempf" To: "Margaret Wasserman" Cc: "Spencer Dawkins" , References: <020601c3d6fe$9a5513d0$606015ac@dclkempt40> <5.1.0.14.2.20040109064121.0427f9f8@ms101.mail1.com> <20040109181541.GA12092@1-4-5.net> <019b01c3d6f7$36ca0020$606015ac@dclkempt40> <020601c3d6fe$9a5513d0$606015ac@dclkempt40> <5.1.0.14.2.20040110134502.03860c10@ms101.mail1.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20040111074241.03867270@ms101.mail1.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20040111162237.0368d9b8@ms101.mail1.com> Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 16:40:07 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [mpowr] Re: Getting Bad Ideas to Fail Early Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Margaret, > >I think we need to have a discussion about how to get bad ideas to fail > >early... > > What are your thoughts on how to do this? > > I've heard a number of people discuss revisions to the WG creation, > chartering, re-chartering and milestone processes that might help > in this area. Are those the types of changes that you are proposing, > or do you have other ideas? > It would certainly be possible to tighten up chartering and re-chartering. Goal completion timing should be more realistic instead of the typical "bid to win" 6 month WG completions, and wording of charters should more precisely reflect what the WGs goals are. The IESG could have a blanket policy to not accept _any_ requests for additional charter items until the existing work items were done. This would ensure that the WG was able to complete something before letting them move on. And perhaps IETF could have a six month provisionary study period for new WGs, after which the idea would either fast fail or be chartered. This would prevent "BOFs" for hanging on for a year or more while the IAB and IESG made up its collective mind about the idea. But there's still a problem, and I think the resistance to letting the WG chair say "no" touches it directly. The problem is that if one is to classify ideas into "good" and "bad" then there either needs to be some written, objective criteria on which to judge or one has to depend on people with experience and knowledge to filter the ideas. Since the former is only possible to a very limited extent in engineering (and to a even lesser extent in such a new discipline as computer science and networks), in practice, filtering good ideas from bad tends to depend on knowledge and experience of people. Now in a certain sense, the concensus process, to the extent that it doesn't privilege anyone's idea over others, is directly contradictory to this (please, no flames, I support concensus, I am just trying to point out a problem). It is possible (in fact, I have seen it happen in WGs) where a larger group of inexperienced people gets behind a bad idea despite the attempts by the more experienced people to point out the flaws in the idea, so the WG chair has no choice but to call concensus for the bad idea, or let the WG continue to thrash until the people behind the bad idea give up (if they do), thus delaying the standard. One of the reasons why the quality on WG documents may have declined so much over the last 5 years is that IETF has been getting such an influx of newcomers that the concensus process may have allowed them to essentially overrule the experienced people in many cases. In practice, the control IETF has now on this is that the IESG has the last word, and the ISEG is nothing if not _the_ most experienced network engineers the community has. So, in essence, they do get the last word on quality, except the work is overwhelming them. The problem with workload can certainly be helped by some of the proposals we're discussing in a separate thread to use one or several review boards, but I don't think having one or several review boards is going to help much to fast fail bad ideas. It will help if reviews are done earlier, since the bad ideas will be detected earlier, but that still won't prevent them from getting into the documents in the first place, and the people who have ownership of them are going to be just as upset when they are told by a review board that their document isn't suitable for publication as they are now when the IESG tells them that. Having early reviews will thus detect the problems earlier, but, as anybody who has looked into quality control knows, the best way to doing quality control is not to have the defects there in the first place. Certainly, giving the WG chair or perhaps the Document Editor a filtering role would help fast fail ideas, but it wouldn't guarantee that the ideas which failed were bad, since many WG chairs and Document Editors are themselves not that experienced. The IETF could up the bar on the experience required to be a Document Editor or WG chair but then we would have to figure out some way to get people with experience and how to get inexperienced people to have enough experience that they would qualify (and it seems more likely that we would get enough experienced people to volunteer to be on a review board than to be a WG chair or Document Editor). Also, privileging one or several people's viewpoint in the WG would definitely be a major change to the current consensus-based decision making process. Perhaps the problem is self limiting, in the sense that the inexperienced people who are in IETF may ultimately learn enough that bad ideas will stop appearing so frequently in documents, or perhaps early review will provide ADs with enough leverage to take action sooner and disband a WG that consistently produces bad ideas in its documents and argues with the review board about quality control when the review board is trying to help them improve. In the end, maybe we are going to just have to live with IETF standards taking longer to develop than those of other STOs, in order that we can preserve consensus based decision making and quality review. Does anybody else have any thoughts about how to reconcile consensus-based decision making with failing bad ideas early? jak _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Jan 11 19:57:39 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA24696 for ; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:57:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AfqOE-0001KT-Gc for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:57:10 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i0C0vAOP005103 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:57:10 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AfqOE-0001KE-Ci for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:57:10 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA24654 for ; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:57:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AfqOC-0006Ro-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:57:08 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AfqMg-0006LK-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:55:34 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AfqKQ-0006Dl-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:53:14 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AfqKD-0001Dq-FJ; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:53:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AfqJj-0001DC-Jg for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:52:34 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA24546 for ; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:52:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AfqJc-0006CE-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:52:24 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AfqEq-00064U-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:47:28 -0500 Received: from key1.docomolabs-usa.com ([216.98.102.225] helo=fridge.docomolabs-usa.com ident=fwuser) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AfqB9-0005w4-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:43:39 -0500 Message-ID: <006501c3d8a5$28b6d4e0$606015ac@dclkempt40> From: "James Kempf" To: "Margaret Wasserman" Cc: References: <020601c3d6fe$9a5513d0$606015ac@dclkempt40> <5.1.0.14.2.20040109064121.0427f9f8@ms101.mail1.com> <20040109181541.GA12092@1-4-5.net> <019b01c3d6f7$36ca0020$606015ac@dclkempt40> <020601c3d6fe$9a5513d0$606015ac@dclkempt40> <5.1.0.14.2.20040110134502.03860c10@ms101.mail1.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20040111074241.03867270@ms101.mail1.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20040111162422.036d4d58@ms101.mail1.com> Subject: Re: [mpowr] SUMMARY: Mailing List Management Discussion Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 16:42:25 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > So, personally, I believe that whether or not we decided to change > the roles of WG chairs and authors/editors, we do need to better > formalize and document the IETF leadership roles -- most notably the > WG chair and document author/editor roles, because those roles > involve so many people and there is so little clarity about those > roles today. > I think it would help to have a clearer set of guidelines about what is expected from a WG chair and authors/editors. 2418 is not very clear. That said, I think the guidelines need to be specific with respect to fostering good WG functioning and not the kind of general "job description" guidelines that HR departments often generate. jak _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jan 12 02:59:36 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA17165 for ; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 02:59:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Afwya-0008CX-Dr for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 02:59:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i0C7x8TU031525 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 02:59:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Afwya-0008CO-4D for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 02:59:08 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA17145 for ; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 02:59:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AfwyW-0004fY-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 02:59:04 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Afwwg-0004ag-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 02:57:10 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AfwvW-0004W1-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 02:55:58 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AfwvZ-00084q-IL; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 02:56:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Afwun-00083a-Bl for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 02:55:13 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA17036 for ; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 02:55:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Afwuj-0004Td-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 02:55:09 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Afwsj-0004Nk-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 02:53:05 -0500 Received: from eagle.ericsson.se ([193.180.251.53]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Afwrp-0004He-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 02:52:09 -0500 Received: from esealnt611.al.sw.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.121]) by eagle.ericsson.se (8.12.10/8.12.10/WIREfire-1.8b) with ESMTP id i0C7qAAh004300 for ; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 08:52:10 +0100 Received: from lm9014.lmera.ericsson.se ([150.132.89.14]) by esealnt611.al.sw.ericsson.se with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2657.72) id CR3G53DP; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 08:54:34 +0100 From: "David Partain (LI/EAB)" Reply-To: David.Partain@ericsson.com Organization: Ericsson - http://www.ericsson.com To: Subject: Re: [mpowr] SUMMARY: Mailing List Management Discussion Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 08:52:08 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.4 References: <5.1.0.14.2.20040109064121.0427f9f8@ms101.mail1.com> <200401091634.33240.david.partain@ericsson.com> <00c701c3d6d6$2a2c2f30$606015ac@dclkempt40> In-Reply-To: <00c701c3d6d6$2a2c2f30$606015ac@dclkempt40> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200401120852.08793.david.partain@ericsson.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by eagle.ericsson.se id i0C7qAAh004300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Good Monday, On Friday 09 January 2004 18.29, James Kempf wrote: > I'm not sure how often the problem occurs, but when it does, it can > effectively destroy the ability of a WG to do any technical work. Most= of > the good technical people fold up their tents and migrate elsewhere whe= n a > distruptor appears on a mailing list. It results in lasting damage to t= he > WG that can make it almost impossible to get any really good technical = work > out of it. At least, that has been my experience Yep, I understand. I guess I was just trying to get a feel for whether this is a Big Deal or a corner case. My hunch (without any real evidence to back it) is that it's an aberration and should be treated as one. Aberrations should not be the primary focus of our "policies" but rather mechanisms that are as simple as possible should be put in place to deal with them when they occur. My short list was a (half-baked) attempt to suggest an approach to the "simple as possible" bit. Cheers, David --=20 Wireless Access Networks E-mail: David.Partain@ericsson.com Ericsson Research Tel: +46 13 28 41 44 P.O. Box 1248 ICQ: 175164860 SE-581 12 Link=F6ping Yahoo: david_partain Sweden http://linlab.ericsson.se/ietf _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jan 12 12:48:28 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA07737 for ; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 12:48:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ag6AS-0005kB-Sq for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 12:48:00 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i0CHm0lL022067 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 12:48:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ag6AS-0005jh-G6 for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 12:48:00 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA07707 for ; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 12:47:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ag6AQ-0005jW-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 12:47:58 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Ag68X-0005gl-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 12:46:01 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ag67Y-0005dn-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 12:45:00 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ag67Z-0005ew-3J; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 12:45:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ag66g-0005eE-CS for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 12:44:06 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA07569 for ; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 12:44:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ag66e-0005cq-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 12:44:04 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Ag64h-0005aR-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 12:42:04 -0500 Received: from measurement-factory.com ([206.168.0.5]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ag649-0005Xl-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 12:41:29 -0500 Received: from measurement-factory.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i0CHfTk3018323; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 10:41:29 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Received: (from rousskov@localhost) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i0CHfTWS018322; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 10:41:29 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rousskov) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 10:41:29 -0700 (MST) From: Alex Rousskov To: Margaret Wasserman cc: mpowr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [mpowr] SUMMARY: Mailing List Management Discussion In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20040111162422.036d4d58@ms101.mail1.com> Message-ID: References: <020601c3d6fe$9a5513d0$606015ac@dclkempt40> <5.1.0.14.2.20040109064121.0427f9f8@ms101.mail1.com> <20040109181541.GA12092@1-4-5.net> <019b01c3d6f7$36ca0020$606015ac@dclkempt40> <020601c3d6fe$9a5513d0$606015ac@dclkempt40> <5.1.0.14.2.20040110134502.03860c10@ms101.mail1.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20040111074241.03867270@ms101.mail1.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20040111162422.036d4d58@ms101.mail1.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 On Sun, 11 Jan 2004, Margaret Wasserman wrote: > I believe that whether or not we decided to change the roles of WG > chairs and authors/editors, we do need to better formalize and > document the IETF leadership roles -- most notably the WG chair and > document author/editor roles, because those roles involve so many > people and there is so little clarity about those roles today. I would find "better documentation" useful. As for the "better formalize" part, I am not sure what you mean, but perhaps better documentation will tell us what roles are too informal to be called IETF roles (impossible to document what they really are in general). Thanks, Alex. _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jan 12 17:50:39 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA26740 for ; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 17:50:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AgAsu-0000h3-Mp for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 17:50:12 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i0CMoCAk002662 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 17:50:12 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AgAsu-0000gr-FL for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 17:50:12 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA26719 for ; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 17:50:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AgAsr-00075u-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 17:50:09 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AgAr8-00072A-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 17:48:23 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AgApp-0006xd-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 17:47:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AgApp-0000bB-7h; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 17:47:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AgAp8-0000Z4-2k for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 17:46:18 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA26576 for ; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 17:46:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AgAp5-0006un-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 17:46:15 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AgAnW-0006qm-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 17:44:39 -0500 Received: from measurement-factory.com ([206.168.0.5]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AgAmm-0006kd-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 17:43:52 -0500 Received: from measurement-factory.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i0CMhpk3030666; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 15:43:51 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Received: (from rousskov@localhost) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i0CMhpCP030665; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 15:43:51 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rousskov) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 15:43:51 -0700 (MST) From: Alex Rousskov To: James Kempf cc: mpowr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [mpowr] Re: Getting Bad Ideas to Fail Early In-Reply-To: <006401c3d8a5$25f4ceb0$606015ac@dclkempt40> Message-ID: References: <020601c3d6fe$9a5513d0$606015ac@dclkempt40> <5.1.0.14.2.20040109064121.0427f9f8@ms101.mail1.com> <20040109181541.GA12092@1-4-5.net> <019b01c3d6f7$36ca0020$606015ac@dclkempt40> <020601c3d6fe$9a5513d0$606015ac@dclkempt40> <5.1.0.14.2.20040110134502.03860c10@ms101.mail1.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20040111074241.03867270@ms101.mail1.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20040111162237.0368d9b8@ms101.mail1.com> <006401c3d8a5$25f4ceb0$606015ac@dclkempt40> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 On Sun, 11 Jan 2004, James Kempf wrote: > One of the reasons why the quality on WG documents may have declined > so much over the last 5 years is that IETF has been getting such an > influx of newcomers that the consensus process may have allowed them > to essentially overrule the experienced people in many cases. > filtering good ideas from bad tends to depend on knowledge and > experience of people. > the concensus process, to the extent that it doesn't privilege > anyone's idea over others, is directly contradictory to this > Does anybody else have any thoughts about how to reconcile > consensus-based decision making with failing bad ideas early? If your starting observation is that newcomers generate bad ideas that old timers can easily spot, then the solution is trivial: restrict vital decision making to old timers and those they trust. We already do that at IESG level, essentially. It's easy to propagate similar Oracle powers to experienced Chairs, for example. This will, of course, reduce the number of newcomers who are willing to be slaves in a volunteer organization. However, since there were apparently no serious problems before the "influx of newcomers" you describe, reduction in fresh blood should not be a big deal, right? IMO, the job of oldtimers is to build an infrastructure that invites and accommodates newcomers while _gradually_ giving them more powers based on their _contribution_, not just "experience" as measured in IETF years. This is an ideal, of course. You cannot have that kind of infrastructure with a pure consensus-based process (that is why IETF is not run by consensus throughout; we have IESG). You cannot have that with "IETF experience rules!" process either. Whether it makes sense to stop consensus at Chair level as opposed to IESG level probably depends on whether we can get virtually all Chairs to be perceived and trusted as true experts and unbiased Oracles. It is a trust and respect that allows volunteer organizations to have a decision making hierarchy. Can we find hundreds of genuinely trusted and respected Chairs? If not, then early review is the best we can do to kill bad ideas early. Alex. _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jan 12 18:10:41 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA28488 for ; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 18:10:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AgBCI-0001LA-BS for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 18:10:14 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i0CNAESO005146 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 18:10:14 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AgBCI-0001Kv-5e for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 18:10:14 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA28438 for ; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 18:10:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AgBCF-0000Zj-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 18:10:11 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AgBAO-0000VT-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 18:08:17 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AgB98-0000R7-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 18:06:58 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AgB9A-000104-Ti; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 18:07:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AgB8d-0000zY-Ec for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 18:06:27 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA28054 for ; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 18:06:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AgB8a-0000P8-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 18:06:24 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AgB76-0000JL-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 18:04:53 -0500 Received: from m106.maoz.com ([205.167.76.9]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AgB5M-00004m-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 18:03:04 -0500 Received: from m106.maoz.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by m106.maoz.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0CN2W6f019473; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 15:02:32 -0800 Received: (from dmm@localhost) by m106.maoz.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0CN2Wxs019472; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 15:02:32 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: m106.maoz.com: dmm set sender to dmm@1-4-5.net using -f Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 15:02:32 -0800 From: David Meyer To: James Kempf Cc: Margaret Wasserman , Spencer Dawkins , mpowr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [mpowr] Re: Getting Bad Ideas to Fail Early Message-ID: <20040112230232.GA19401@1-4-5.net> References: <20040109181541.GA12092@1-4-5.net> <019b01c3d6f7$36ca0020$606015ac@dclkempt40> <020601c3d6fe$9a5513d0$606015ac@dclkempt40> <5.1.0.14.2.20040110134502.03860c10@ms101.mail1.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20040111074241.03867270@ms101.mail1.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20040111162237.0368d9b8@ms101.mail1.com> <006401c3d8a5$25f4ceb0$606015ac@dclkempt40> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <006401c3d8a5$25f4ceb0$606015ac@dclkempt40> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-public-key: http://www.1-4-5.net/~dmm/public-key.asc X-philosophy: "I just had to let it go" -- John Lennon Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 04:40:07PM -0800, James Kempf wrote: >> Hi Margaret, >> >> > >I think we need to have a discussion about how to get bad ideas to fail >> > >early... >> > >> > What are your thoughts on how to do this? >> > >> > I've heard a number of people discuss revisions to the WG creation, >> > chartering, re-chartering and milestone processes that might help >> > in this area. Are those the types of changes that you are proposing, >> > or do you have other ideas? >> > >> >> It would certainly be possible to tighten up chartering and re-chartering. >> Goal completion timing should be more realistic instead of the typical "bid >> to win" 6 month WG completions, and wording of charters should more >> precisely reflect what the WGs goals are. The IESG could have a blanket >> policy to not accept _any_ requests for additional charter items until the >> existing work items were done. This would ensure that the WG was able to >> complete something before letting them move on. And perhaps IETF could have >> a six month provisionary study period for new WGs, after which the idea >> would either fast fail or be chartered. This would prevent "BOFs" for >> hanging on for a year or more while the IAB and IESG made up its collective >> mind about the idea. >> >> But there's still a problem, and I think the resistance to letting the WG >> chair say "no" touches it directly. >> >> The problem is that if one is to classify ideas into "good" and "bad" then >> there either needs to be some written, objective criteria on which to judge >> or one has to depend on people with experience and knowledge to filter the >> ideas. Since the former is only possible to a very limited extent in >> engineering (and to a even lesser extent in such a new discipline as >> computer science and networks), in practice, filtering good ideas from bad >> tends to depend on knowledge and experience of people. >> >> Now in a certain sense, the concensus process, to the extent that it doesn't >> privilege anyone's idea over others, is directly contradictory to this >> (please, no flames, I support concensus, I am just trying to point out a >> problem). It is possible (in fact, I have seen it happen in WGs) where a >> larger group of inexperienced people gets behind a bad idea despite the >> attempts by the more experienced people to point out the flaws in the idea, >> so the WG chair has no choice but to call concensus for the bad idea, or let >> the WG continue to thrash until the people behind the bad idea give up (if >> they do), thus delaying the standard. One of the reasons why the quality on >> WG documents may have declined so much over the last 5 years is that IETF >> has been getting such an influx of newcomers that the concensus process may >> have allowed them to essentially overrule the experienced people in many >> cases. >> >> In practice, the control IETF has now on this is that the IESG has the last >> word, and the ISEG is nothing if not _the_ most experienced network >> engineers the community has. So, in essence, they do get the last word on >> quality, except the work is overwhelming them. The problem with workload can >> certainly be helped by some of the proposals we're discussing in a separate >> thread to use one or several review boards, but I don't think having one or >> several review boards is going to help much to fast fail bad ideas. It will >> help if reviews are done earlier, since the bad ideas will be detected >> earlier, but that still won't prevent them from getting into the documents >> in the first place, and the people who have ownership of them are going to >> be just as upset when they are told by a review board that their document >> isn't suitable for publication as they are now when the IESG tells them >> that. Having early reviews will thus detect the problems earlier, but, as >> anybody who has looked into quality control knows, the best way to doing >> quality control is not to have the defects there in the first place. >> >> Certainly, giving the WG chair or perhaps the Document Editor a filtering >> role would help fast fail ideas, but it wouldn't guarantee that the ideas >> which failed were bad, since many WG chairs and Document Editors are >> themselves not that experienced. The IETF could up the bar on the experience >> required to be a Document Editor or WG chair but then we would have to >> figure out some way to get people with experience and how to get >> inexperienced people to have enough experience that they would qualify (and >> it seems more likely that we would get enough experienced people to >> volunteer to be on a review board than to be a WG chair or Document Editor). >> Also, privileging one or several people's viewpoint in the WG would >> definitely be a major change to the current consensus-based decision making >> process. >> >> Perhaps the problem is self limiting, in the sense that the inexperienced >> people who are in IETF may ultimately learn enough that bad ideas will stop >> appearing so frequently in documents, or perhaps early review will provide >> ADs with enough leverage to take action sooner and disband a WG that >> consistently produces bad ideas in its documents and argues with the review >> board about quality control when the review board is trying to help them >> improve. In the end, maybe we are going to just have to live with IETF >> standards taking longer to develop than those of other STOs, in order that >> we can preserve consensus based decision making and quality review.> > >> Does anybody else have any thoughts about how to reconcile consensus-based >> decision making with failing bad ideas early? This is the crux of the problem, wouldn't you say? Oh, and BTW, I have seen no evidence that this problem is, as you say, self limiting. Quite the contrary (in some cases any way): we can all point to some set of some bad ideas that seem to have a life of their own, and continue to come back in new and creative forms. In many such cases, the experience that is gained is frequently how to game the system, rather than how to do produce better engineering. This is one of the things we watch when considering these proposals. Dave _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jan 12 18:20:27 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA29205 for ; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 18:20:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AgBLk-0001UL-A8 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 18:20:00 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i0CNK0Hl005715 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 18:20:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AgBLk-0001U6-3g for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 18:20:00 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA29198 for ; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 18:19:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AgBLh-0000tG-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 18:19:57 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AgBJp-0000qp-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 18:18:01 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AgBIo-0000oy-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 18:16:58 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AgBIq-0001Q6-LN; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 18:17:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AgBHy-0001PE-20 for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 18:16:06 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA29062 for ; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 18:16:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AgBHv-0000nV-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 18:16:03 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AgBG6-0000kT-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 18:14:11 -0500 Received: from m106.maoz.com ([205.167.76.9]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AgBFk-0000hG-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 18:13:48 -0500 Received: from m106.maoz.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by m106.maoz.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0CNDG6f019757; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 15:13:16 -0800 Received: (from dmm@localhost) by m106.maoz.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0CNDGYp019756; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 15:13:16 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: m106.maoz.com: dmm set sender to dmm@1-4-5.net using -f Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 15:13:16 -0800 From: David Meyer To: James Kempf Cc: Margaret Wasserman , Spencer Dawkins , mpowr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [mpowr] Re: Getting Bad Ideas to Fail Early Message-ID: <20040112231316.GA19744@1-4-5.net> References: <20040109181541.GA12092@1-4-5.net> <019b01c3d6f7$36ca0020$606015ac@dclkempt40> <020601c3d6fe$9a5513d0$606015ac@dclkempt40> <5.1.0.14.2.20040110134502.03860c10@ms101.mail1.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20040111074241.03867270@ms101.mail1.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20040111162237.0368d9b8@ms101.mail1.com> <006401c3d8a5$25f4ceb0$606015ac@dclkempt40> <20040112230232.GA19401@1-4-5.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040112230232.GA19401@1-4-5.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-public-key: http://www.1-4-5.net/~dmm/public-key.asc X-philosophy: "I just had to let it go" -- John Lennon Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 >> This is the crux of the problem, wouldn't you say? Oh, >> and BTW, I have seen no evidence that this problem is, >> as you say, self limiting. Quite the contrary (in some >> cases any way): we can all point to some set of some bad >> ideas that seem to have a life of their own, and continue >> to come back in new and creative forms. In many such >> cases, the experience that is gained is frequently how to >> game the system, rather than how to do produce better >> engineering. This is one of the things we watch when s/we watch/we need to watch/ >> considering these proposals. Sorry about that Dave _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jan 13 05:50:01 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA05166 for ; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 05:50:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AgM6z-000818-KJ for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 05:49:29 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i0DAnTTI030814 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 05:49:29 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AgM6z-00080v-F7 for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 05:49:29 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA05147 for ; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 05:49:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AgM6q-0005dm-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 05:49:20 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AgM2i-0005Ik-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 05:45:06 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AgLyl-00058s-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 05:40:59 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AgLyn-0007rS-GQ; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 05:41:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AgLy0-0007po-UW for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 05:40:12 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA04851 for ; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 05:40:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AgLxx-00052O-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 05:40:09 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AgLvy-0004vw-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 05:38:07 -0500 Received: from eagle.ericsson.se ([193.180.251.53]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AgLu4-0004rD-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 05:36:08 -0500 Received: from esealnt613.al.sw.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.125]) by eagle.ericsson.se (8.12.10/8.12.10/WIREfire-1.8b) with ESMTP id i0DAa5Ah005931 for ; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 11:36:09 +0100 Received: from lm9014.lmera.ericsson.se ([150.132.89.14]) by esealnt613.al.sw.ericsson.se with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2657.72) id CZDFC1D9; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 11:36:05 +0100 From: "David Partain (LI/EAB)" Reply-To: David.Partain@ericsson.com Organization: Ericsson - http://www.ericsson.com To: mpowr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [mpowr] Re: Getting Bad Ideas to Fail Early Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 11:36:03 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.4 References: <020601c3d6fe$9a5513d0$606015ac@dclkempt40> <006401c3d8a5$25f4ceb0$606015ac@dclkempt40> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200401131136.03482.david.partain@ericsson.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, I'm going to snip liberally... > On Sun, 11 Jan 2004, James Kempf wrote: [snip snip] jk> Does anybody else have any thoughts about how to reconcile jk> consensus-based decision making with failing bad ideas early? On Monday 12 January 2004 23.43, Alex Rousskov wrote: [snip snip] ar> If not, then early review is the best we can do to kill bad ideas ar> early. My take on this topic: Yes, we absolutely need to have some mechanism(s) in place for early review. This would be useful both for pruning Bad Stuff and for improving Good Stuff. That said, this won't be even remotely trivial. I just don't see how we can get away from the fact that that would require a set of experienced people outside the WG who can provide an "IESG-like" review at semi-regular intervals in a document's path through the WG. But those reviews must also have "IESG-like" weight, or the exercise may indeed be pointless. We seem to be loathe to giving anyone this kind of weight for fear of introducing yet another group of IETF insiders who can act with impunity... Compounding the problem is that I just don't see where we'll find all of these experienced people whose employers are willing to sponsor this work or who're willing to read IDs instead of reading to their kids. I'd rather read The Cat in the Hat anytime :-) And then there's the A Word... If we have the goal of killing "bad" ideas early in the process, someone (or ones) has to have the authority to do so, (hopefully) backed by WG concensus. If we don't invest the reviewers with some sort of veto power, and the WG can just tell 'em to find the nearest lake, what's the point? That strikes me as a collosal waste of everyone's time. Human nature ensures that if a review body returns a _Bad_ verdict to a working group, they're going to put up a fight. "Did you call my baby ugly!? Them's fightin' words!" It's just inevitable. I don't have the faintest idea how to reconcile the need for someone to say, "Stop that now!" and the WG's concensus decision that it's great stuff. So, I'd love to see early review, but ... Who will a working group listen to? They currently must listen to the IESG. Is the IETF willing to invest reviewers with similar weight? Where are these fabled reviewers? Does nomcom have to find them? Do they volunteer and go through a screening process? Can they be "fired"? What do we do if the WG refuses to acknowledge that an idea is "bad" and forges ahead? Won't that likely mean it'll just get bounced back by the IESG? - Do we say, "Appeal to the IESG"? My guess is that this will happen _every single time_. That's not suddenly going to lighten the load of an AD... - Do we add a note to their IESG file saying "This WG is doing stupid stuff but won't listen to us. You get to deal with it when it gets to you."? That strikes me as pretty pointless. What role do(es) the chair(s) have in all of this? Are they simply the messenger between the reviewers and the working group? The advocate of the consensus decision? To reiterate: I think we need this. I just don't know if we (the IETF) are willing to do what it seems to imply -- give someone besides the IESG veto power. Cheers, David _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jan 13 09:32:57 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA13987 for ; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 09:32:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AgPam-00072R-GN for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 09:32:29 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i0DEWSAx027049 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 09:32:28 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AgPam-00072C-Ae for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 09:32:28 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA13958 for ; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 09:32:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AgPaj-0001nk-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 09:32:25 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AgPYu-0001kT-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 09:30:33 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AgPYO-0001hM-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 09:30:00 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AgPYO-0006xr-Qf; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 09:30:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AgOj2-0005MW-UR for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 08:36:56 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA11992 for ; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 08:36:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AgOj1-0006i5-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 08:36:55 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AgOh5-0006ZL-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 08:34:55 -0500 Received: from ns.jck.com ([209.187.148.211] helo=bs.jck.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AgOgF-0006R0-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 08:34:03 -0500 Received: from [209.187.148.215] (helo=scan.jck.com) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 1AgOgC-0008kS-00; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 08:34:00 -0500 Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 08:34:00 -0500 From: John C Klensin To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand , Pekka Savola cc: mpowr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [mpowr] Experiment design Message-ID: <85701622.1073982840@scan.jck.com> In-Reply-To: <2089172591.1073661950@localhost> References: <2089172591.1073661950@localhost> X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.1.0 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Harald, --On Friday, 09 January, 2004 15:25 -0800 Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: > When I think of running an experiment, I think of something > like: > > - Define the ruleset we want to test > - Declare that from March 1(?), in all WGs with the first > letter from A to K, the new ruleset applies; in WGs from L to > Z, the old rule of IESG decision applies. > - At the end of 3 (or 6) months, the WG chairs get asked: > - Did you remove anyone from the list? > - Was there a time when you wanted to remove a person from > the > list, but did not? > - Was there a time when you removed someone from the list, > and > afterwards decided that you made the wrong decision? > > That should give us some real data - or some real data saying > that this isn't a problem...... I'd add two things to your list, which I consider fairly important: (1) A request to the WG participants for input on whether they feel happier or unhappier with the changes in place, with "happier" specifically focused on "feel that the WG is more effective", "feel that it is easier to contribute", "feel that the S/N ratio in the WG's discussions is better", etc., and "unhappier" including the opposite of these. We shouldn't just be asking the Chairs about impacts. (2) A mechanism for early discontinuance of the "experiment" if there are severe and obvious consequences. While I personally think that is unlikely, if the process led to a lot of appeals with which the IESG agreed, it would be time to immediately stop, and either give it up or readjust the rules in some fashion. Using the mailing list management situation as an example, I would consider "fewer disruptions than before and an improved S/N ratio" to make the procedural change a wild success. But it would give zero data under your proposal and, indeed, under that proposal as written, might convince people that there was no problem, since no one was removed nor was there the strong temptation to remove anyone. Similarly, I would consider "warned someone in private and they decided to behave, where previous warnings had been unheeded" to be a sign of huge success, and your list of questions is unlikely to capture that one either. john p.s. To anyone inclined to raise the "it isn't really an experiment, since there is no design control group and no placebo" argument, please give it a rest. I am _not_ singling anyone out here -- that comment is made by someone, usually someone different, every time someone uses the word "experiment" around the IETF. Virtually any experiment (e.g., a change in the rules with a monitored and evaluated outcome) on a social/behavioral system requires working with the subjective evaluations of participants and/or observers as to what happened. If you exclude anything that is not subject to a carefully managed cross-plot or split-plot design, or even everything on which no exogeneous variates can unexpectedly occur in the system, then there are no experiments except in agriculture, and fewer of those than is generally believed. In more careful designs than I am suggesting above (because I don't think the design and implementation time is justified), there are sometimes-complex techniques to lay a basis for comparing pre- and post-test opinions but they still don't involve design control groups or placebo controls. The latter, in their purest form, are applicable only if _all_ variation not measured by the experiment can be excluded and that is, in practice, nearly impossible (double-blind placebo-based tests are just intended to minimize the most obvious causes). If you need some really good examples from the "experimental" literature, read some of the papers evaluating treatments the claim to reduce perceived pain levels. Then, for a change in pace, read Wittgenstein's discussions on how someone accurately communicates levels of pain to someone else. I try to discourage my statistician colleagues who are not trained in network design from doing their own networks, and believe that this community should return the favor. _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jan 13 11:10:56 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA21356 for ; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 11:10:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AgR7d-000359-Ar for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 11:10:30 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i0DGATLp011841 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 11:10:29 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AgR7d-00034u-65 for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 11:10:29 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA21331 for ; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 11:10:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AgR7a-0000om-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 11:10:26 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AgR5l-0000km-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 11:08:33 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AgR4F-0000hK-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 11:06:59 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AgR4H-0002k0-CD; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 11:07:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AgR3s-0002iy-74 for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 11:06:36 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA21210 for ; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 11:06:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AgR3p-0000gP-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 11:06:33 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AgR28-0000cp-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 11:04:49 -0500 Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com ([171.68.10.86]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AgR1L-0000YA-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 11:03:59 -0500 Received: from cisco.com (erosen-u10.cisco.com [161.44.70.36]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i0DG3OK6024323; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 11:03:25 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200401131603.i0DG3OK6024323@rtp-core-2.cisco.com> To: "James Kempf" cc: "Margaret Wasserman" , "Spencer Dawkins" , mpowr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [mpowr] Re: Getting Bad Ideas to Fail Early In-reply-to: Your message of Sun, 11 Jan 2004 16:40:07 -0800. <006401c3d8a5$25f4ceb0$606015ac@dclkempt40> Reply-To: erosen@cisco.com User-Agent: EMH/1.14.1 SEMI/1.14.3 (Ushinoya) FLIM/1.14.3 (=?ISO-8859-4?Q?Unebigory=F2mae?=) APEL/10.3 Emacs/21.3 (sparc-sun-solaris2.8) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.3 - "Ushinoya") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 11:03:24 -0500 From: Eric Rosen Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 > It is possible (in fact, I have seen it happen in WGs) where a > larger group of inexperienced people gets behind a bad idea despite the > attempts by the more experienced people to point out the flaws in the idea, > so the WG chair has no choice but to call consensus for the bad idea, or let > the WG continue to thrash until the people behind the bad idea give up (if > they do), thus delaying the standard. I certainly agree that this is a very significant problem. A WG can be packed with folks who barely know what IP is, and it is difficult for the chair to say "your opinions don't carry much weight because you don't know what you are talking about." > In practice, the control IETF has now on this is that the IESG has the last > word, and the ISEG is nothing if not _the_ most experienced network > engineers the community has. Unfortunately, this part is baloney. Members of the IESG have frequently expressed contempt for certain WGs, even if positions of technical leadership in those WGS are held by folks whose ideas have been helping to shape the Internet for over 20 years. What's needed is some way to interpret "consensus" as "consensus of the clueful", where "clueful" means "has expertise in the field", rather than "agrees with me". Most of the arguments about whether WG chairs should be further empowered are really arguments about whether the chairs can be trusted to interpret "consensus" properly. _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jan 13 15:56:53 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA12550 for ; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 15:56:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AgVaK-0002eJ-RF for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 15:56:25 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i0DKuOSv010182 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 15:56:24 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AgVaJ-0002e4-9X for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 15:56:24 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA12510 for ; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 15:56:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AgVaH-0004Yi-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 15:56:21 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AgVYQ-0004VG-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 15:54:27 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AgVX3-0004T5-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 15:53:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AgVX4-0002NA-Kd; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 15:53:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AgVWT-0002Li-5f for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 15:52:25 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA12383 for ; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 15:52:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AgVWR-0004RM-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 15:52:23 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AgVUX-0004Os-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 15:50:25 -0500 Received: from measurement-factory.com ([206.168.0.5]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AgVTX-0004NC-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 15:49:23 -0500 Received: from measurement-factory.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i0DKnIk3080204; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 13:49:18 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Received: (from rousskov@localhost) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i0DKnIRW080203; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 13:49:18 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rousskov) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 13:49:18 -0700 (MST) From: Alex Rousskov To: "David Partain (LI/EAB)" cc: mpowr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [mpowr] Re: Getting Bad Ideas to Fail Early In-Reply-To: <200401131136.03482.david.partain@ericsson.com> Message-ID: References: <020601c3d6fe$9a5513d0$606015ac@dclkempt40> <006401c3d8a5$25f4ceb0$606015ac@dclkempt40> <200401131136.03482.david.partain@ericsson.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, David Partain (LI/EAB) wrote: > Who will a working group listen to? From process point of view, the working group does not have to listen to any reviewer. They can, technically, mark each submitted review with "we disagree" and let IESG resolve all the conflicts. > They currently must listen to the IESG. Is the IETF willing to > invest reviewers with similar weight? IETF should be willing and able to design exit criteria that allow some documents to get published without IESG involvement. This does not assign same weight to reviewers as to IESG, but it does assign some weight. In other words, reviewers can "clear" a document (if all reviewers and the WG agrees and there is sufficient coverage). However, reviewers cannot kill the document. Only IESG can. > Where are these fabled reviewers? Does nomcom have to find > them? Do they volunteer and go through a screening process? Can > they be "fired"? This is where proposals differ a lot. I advocate an open pool of volunteers without a special screening process, but with "trusted by AD", "trusted by IESG" or similar flags that are assigned to _some_ fabled reviewers by ADs, IESG, etc. > What do we do if the WG refuses to acknowledge that an idea is > "bad" and forges ahead? Wait for IESG to decide. It would be nice to design some procedure for IESG to decide sooner (early) rather than at PS stage. > Won't that likely mean it'll just get bounced back by the IESG? Yes, it is likely. However, we can only have a single vetoing entity for each document. Having two vetoing entities (one for each document category or whatever) seems too complicated to me. So IESG remains the final conflict resolution entity. > What role do(es) the chair(s) have in all of this? Are they simply > the messenger between the reviewers and the working group? The > advocate of the consensus decision? The chair has no special role in this process, IMO. I do not see a need for messenger here. If there is a human messenger, we need to care about the message integrity and delivery. Instead, each document has a single point of contact: a dedicated WG e-mail address (or author's address for individual submissions). Notification of submitted reviews or any status changes are automatically sent to that address. > To reiterate: I think we need this. I just don't know if we (the > IETF) are willing to do what it seems to imply -- give someone > besides the IESG veto power. I do not think review implies that reviewer has a veto power. A reviewer is an analyst or an advisor. A reviewer does not have to be a decision maker. Alex. _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jan 14 10:22:14 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA23020 for ; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 10:22:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Agmq1-0004ya-TW for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 10:21:46 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i0EFLjvg019128 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 10:21:45 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Agmq1-0004yR-OB for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 10:21:45 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA23001 for ; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 10:21:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Agmpz-0007lE-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 10:21:43 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Agmp9-0007kG-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 10:20:52 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AgmoL-0007ik-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 10:20:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AgmoL-0004tk-IK; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 10:20:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AgmoB-0004tG-L3 for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 10:19:51 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA22941 for ; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 10:19:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Agmo9-0007hd-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 10:19:49 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AgmnK-0007g6-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 10:18:58 -0500 Received: from adsl-68-76-113-50.dsl.bcvloh.ameritech.net ([68.76.113.50] helo=guns.icir.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Agmn2-0007dR-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 10:18:40 -0500 Received: from guns.icir.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by guns.icir.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 325B477A704; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 10:18:08 -0500 (EST) To: Alex Rousskov From: Mark Allman Reply-To: mallman@icir.org Cc: Margaret Wasserman , mpowr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [mpowr] SUMMARY: Give WG chairs more shepherding responsibility? In-Reply-To: Organization: ICSI Center for Internet Research (ICIR) Song-of-the-Day: Tom Sawyer Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 10:18:08 -0500 Message-Id: <20040114151808.325B477A704@guns.icir.org> Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Margaret Wasserman: > There seems to be consensus amongst those who have participated in the > discussion that it would be good to give WG chairs more responsibility > for shepherding documents after they are sent to the IESG for review. I agree. Alex Rousskov: > (b) Could you gauge consensus using the "WG" or > "WG representative" wording instead of a "WG chair" > wording? I agree that the WG should be more involved > in some stages of the review, but I am not ready > to assign that responsibility to Chairs. Disagree. I think "WG chair" is the right term. You cannot have an entire WG sheperding a document through the final stages. The chair(s), in effect, is (are) the representative(s) of the WG. allman _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jan 14 13:51:19 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA02766 for ; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 13:51:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Agq6M-0000DN-W3 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 13:50:51 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i0EIoo1l000825 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 13:50:50 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Agq6M-0000DE-SZ for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 13:50:50 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA02712 for ; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 13:50:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Agq6K-0002A1-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 13:50:48 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Agq5N-00028L-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 13:49:50 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Agq4Z-00027k-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 13:48:59 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Agq4a-00009Z-Ky; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 13:49:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Agq4S-00008C-8y for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 13:48:52 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA02628 for ; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 13:48:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Agq4Q-00026U-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 13:48:50 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Agq3U-000244-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 13:47:53 -0500 Received: from one.elistx.com ([209.116.252.130]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Agq2Z-00022g-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 13:46:55 -0500 Received: from localhost (one.elistx.com [209.116.252.130]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0HRH0012DTIOEG@eListX.com> for mpowr@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 13:47:13 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 13:46:39 -0500 (EST) From: James M Galvin Subject: Re: [mpowr] SUMMARY: Mailing List Management Discussion In-reply-to: <5.1.0.14.2.20040109064121.0427f9f8@ms101.mail1.com> X-X-Sender: galvin@three.elistx.com To: Margaret Wasserman Cc: mpowr@ietf.org Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 I'm replying to the first message in this thread but I have kept up with the discussion to date. On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Margaret Wasserman wrote: (1) There is rough consensus among the people active on this list that WG chairs should be allowed to revoke the posting privileges of disruptive participants with AD approval and the possibility of appeal. There is one point that has not been made in this discussion far. Personally, I believe a Working Group Chair should have the authority to revoke posting privileges and further believe they would have it if it was not explicitly assigned to the IESG by documented procedures. I say this because I view a mailing list as an extension of a meeting, if not as a meeting itself. In a physical meeting a Chair is well within their authority to have a disruptive participant removed. Most working groups are not run strictly according to Robert's Rules of Order but it seems pretty straightforward to me. The "check" in a physical meeting is the person won't be removed if the Chair does not get the support of the other participants. The balance is a person can always appeal to the AD/IESG. So why should it be any different for a mailing list? Do we really need to document this? (2) There is rough consensus among the people active on this list that the details of James' proposal are too process-heavy, and that we need a lighter-weight proposal. I agree. If there's a process at all I can see a fairly lightweight documentation of a process: 1. one private warning 2. one public warning 3. revocation of privilege Perhaps the public warning needs to stand for a week before the posting is actually revoked. This ensures that if the community disagrees with the revocation there is sufficient time to comment. I can also imagine an escalating revocation period, perhaps a week to start, then a month, then 3 months, then 6 months, and then a year. But perhaps too short a period will make it used too quickly and too often so we should start with a month or three. This can certainly be discussed further. And a participant who has had posting privileges revoked can always appeal to the relevant AD. The AD should have the authority to act without the full consensus of the IESG. I think this is important only because the IESG may need at least 2 weeks to formally react at all. And the basis for revoking posting privileges should be "obvious when it is present." Someone objected to that characterization but I think it is just fine. The working group has a charter and there is a reasonable understanding and expectation of forward progress and what it means. If a working group agrees with the Chair I don't see a serious problem. And there is always the appeal. Would anyone object if we made a proposal to the IESG to try such an experiment? Does anyone want to write up a specific proposal along those lines? James, do you want to try again? I don't believe an experiment would be useful. I just don't believe there will be enough data points to make it useful. I suggest we simply start with a fairly simple process and procedures and incrementally revise it as needed. The most important thing we need is the understanding that revoking posting privileges is a legitimate implementation of a reaction to disruptive individuals. That's all. A Chair's job is to run a meeting and revoking posting privileges is not much different than withholding the microphone or "revoking the floor." Keep in mind a person can always get their input heard. As has been pointed out elsewhere they can still read the messages, check out the archive, and send private messages to whoever they want. This is no different than being banned from a physical meeting and needing to talk one-on-one with other participants about your point of view. Jim _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jan 15 22:38:23 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA15232 for ; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 22:38:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AhKo0-0006Ko-8x for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 22:37:56 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i0G3btSt024331 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 22:37:55 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AhKny-0006KM-MA for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 22:37:54 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA15217 for ; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 22:37:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AhKnv-0006wC-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 22:37:51 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AhKn0-0006ul-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 22:36:55 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AhKm7-0006tV-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 22:35:59 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AhKm9-000617-Vw; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 22:36:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AhKm2-0005zv-Oe for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 22:35:54 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA15184 for ; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 22:35:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AhKlz-0006sQ-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 22:35:51 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AhKl3-0006qo-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 22:34:54 -0500 Received: from sccrmhc12.comcast.net ([204.127.202.56]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AhKk9-0006ny-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 22:33:57 -0500 Received: from dfnjgl21 (c-24-1-97-129.client.comcast.net[24.1.97.129]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc12) with SMTP id <20040116033327012003tpf0e> (Authid: sdawkins@comcast.net); Fri, 16 Jan 2004 03:33:28 +0000 Message-ID: <005501c3dbe1$817244e0$0400a8c0@DFNJGL21> Reply-To: "Spencer Dawkins" From: "Spencer Dawkins" To: References: <2089172591.1073661950@localhost> <85701622.1073982840@scan.jck.com> Subject: Re: [mpowr] Experiment design Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 21:33:24 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit If a tirade is completely correct and justified, is it still a tirade? Spencer, who does have a masters degree in a quantitative social science and very little urge to exercise that side of my brain in the IETF... ----- Original Message ----- From: "John C Klensin" To: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" ; "Pekka Savola" Cc: Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 7:34 AM Subject: Re: [mpowr] Experiment design > > p.s. To anyone inclined to raise the "it isn't really an > experiment, since there is no design control group and no > placebo" argument, please give it a rest. I am _not_ singling > anyone out here -- that comment is made by someone, usually > someone different, every time someone uses the word "experiment" > around the IETF. Virtually any experiment (e.g., a change in > the rules with a monitored and evaluated outcome) on a > social/behavioral system requires working with the subjective > evaluations of participants and/or observers as to what > happened. If you exclude anything that is not subject to a > carefully managed cross-plot or split-plot design, or even > everything on which no exogeneous variates can unexpectedly > occur in the system, then there are no experiments except in > agriculture, and fewer of those than is generally believed. In > more careful designs than I am suggesting above (because I don't > think the design and implementation time is justified), there > are sometimes-complex techniques to lay a basis for comparing > pre- and post-test opinions but they still don't involve design > control groups or placebo controls. The latter, in their purest > form, are applicable only if _all_ variation not measured by the > experiment can be excluded and that is, in practice, nearly > impossible (double-blind placebo-based tests are just intended > to minimize the most obvious causes). > > If you need some really good examples from the "experimental" > literature, read some of the papers evaluating treatments the > claim to reduce perceived pain levels. Then, for a change in > pace, read Wittgenstein's discussions on how someone accurately > communicates levels of pain to someone else. > > I try to discourage my statistician colleagues who are not > trained in network design from doing their own networks, and > believe that this community should return the favor. > _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jan 20 09:25:58 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA00927 for ; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 09:25:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aiwor-00083J-My for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 09:25:30 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i0KEPT8Y030948 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 09:25:29 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aiwor-000835-Fv for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 09:25:29 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA00920 for ; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 09:25:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aiwop-0002a8-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 09:25:27 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aiwnt-0002XE-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 09:24:30 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AiwnQ-0002U8-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 09:24:00 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AiwnQ-0007xD-NI; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 09:24:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aiwmm-0007v5-DM for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 09:23:20 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA00836 for ; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 09:23:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aiwmk-0002Ry-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 09:23:18 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aiwlo-0002Pn-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 09:22:21 -0500 Received: from adsl-68-76-113-50.dsl.bcvloh.ameritech.net ([68.76.113.50] helo=guns.icir.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aiwk2-0002JL-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 09:20:30 -0500 Received: from guns.icir.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by guns.icir.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8D3577A6FA; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 09:19:58 -0500 (EST) To: David.Partain@ericsson.com Cc: mpowr@ietf.org From: Mark Allman Reply-To: mallman@icir.org Subject: Re: [mpowr] Re: Getting Bad Ideas to Fail Early In-Reply-To: <200401131136.03482.david.partain@ericsson.com> Organization: ICSI Center for Internet Research (ICIR) Song-of-the-Day: Takin' Care of Business Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 09:19:58 -0500 Message-Id: <20040120141958.C8D3577A6FA@guns.icir.org> Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 David- You definately raise a whole lot of good questions (probably better suited for ICAR, but...). Thanks! But, I want to say a few words about this... > That said, this won't be even remotely trivial. I just don't > see how we can get away from the fact that that would require > a set of experienced people outside the WG who can provide an > "IESG-like" review at semi-regular intervals in a document's > path through the WG. But those reviews must also have > "IESG-like" weight, or the exercise may indeed be pointless. I am not sure I agree with this... * First, if the WG and the reviewers are 180-degrees different in their thinking then it would seem as if the WG chair could reasonably say that there is no consensus. That would assume that the reviewers would then work closely with the WG to fix things (or, they wouldn't be part of the WG consensus determination). That may or may not happen -- sort of depends on what the early review mechanism looks like. * Given a high quality review team it would seem as though the WG would ignore the reviewers at their own peril. Take a hot-button sort of issue like congestion control. If the reviewers said "hey, you need some congestion control or this won't fly" (with a few more words, etc.) and the WG says "nope, we don't want it, we don't need it, we can't have it" and the consensus of the WG is to forward the document to the IESG then it isn't a "late surprise", rather it's a "late problem" of the WG's creation when the IESG sends the document back. I would think that when the WG and the reviewers are completely at odds it could be the WG chair's job to try to work through the issues. (Maybe bring in more reviewers or bring in an AD or IAB member or other senior IETFer to try to explain the rational behind some objection (e.g., "must have CC"). It would behoove the WG to work with the reviewers in the long run, I think. (And, yes, sometimes that is going to be tough for the WG to understand.) * If the WG is stubborn and shoots the document to the IESG anyway then the early review doesn't necessarily help with the "IESG overload" problem. But, it seems that early cross-area/functional/whatever review could well present opportunities to work out issues earlier rather than later. And, WGs (and, specifically, WG chairs) should be wise enough to attempt to work through the issues and not just say "we disagree". * In the blatant cases where the WG chair does not try to work through the issues then the IESG overload problem can be helped by the IESG replacing the WG chair. Maybe we are thinking about authority a little to much. Maybe we should be thinking in terms of collaboration and seeing how far that will take us (a theme others have raised repeatedly). allman -- Mark Allman -- ICIR -- http://www.icir.org/mallman/ _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jan 20 22:17:18 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA08027 for ; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 22:17:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aj8rK-0003Te-UR for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 22:16:51 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i0L3GoMk013363 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 22:16:50 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aj8rK-0003TS-Nv for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 22:16:50 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA08020 for ; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 22:16:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aj8rH-0001aS-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 22:16:47 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aj8qM-0001Y3-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 22:15:51 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aj8pX-0001VW-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 22:14:59 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aj8pZ-0003QQ-5u; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 22:15:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aj8pO-0003PW-95 for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 22:14:50 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA07965 for ; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 22:14:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aj8pL-0001Uk-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 22:14:47 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aj8oO-0001SQ-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 22:13:49 -0500 Received: from sccrmhc13.comcast.net ([204.127.202.64]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aj8nT-0001OB-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 22:12:51 -0500 Received: from dfnjgl21 (c-24-1-97-129.client.comcast.net[24.1.97.129]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc13) with SMTP id <2004012103122001600i3t5me> (Authid: sdawkins@comcast.net); Wed, 21 Jan 2004 03:12:21 +0000 Message-ID: <029901c3dfcc$63cf0560$0400a8c0@DFNJGL21> Reply-To: "Spencer Dawkins" From: "Spencer Dawkins" To: References: <20040120141958.C8D3577A6FA@guns.icir.org> Subject: Re: [mpowr] Re: Getting Bad Ideas to Fail Early Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 21:12:22 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Allman" To: Cc: Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 8:19 AM Subject: Re: [mpowr] Re: Getting Bad Ideas to Fail Early > > David- > > You definately raise a whole lot of good questions (probably better > suited for ICAR, but...). Thanks! > > But, I want to say a few words about this... > > > That said, this won't be even remotely trivial. I just don't > > see how we can get away from the fact that that would require > > a set of experienced people outside the WG who can provide an > > "IESG-like" review at semi-regular intervals in a document's > > path through the WG. But those reviews must also have > > "IESG-like" weight, or the exercise may indeed be pointless. > > I am not sure I agree with this... > > * First, if the WG and the reviewers are 180-degrees different in > their thinking then it would seem as if the WG chair could > reasonably say that there is no consensus. That would assume that > the reviewers would then work closely with the WG to fix things (or, > they wouldn't be part of the WG consensus determination). That may > or may not happen -- sort of depends on what the early review > mechanism looks like. > > * Given a high quality review team it would seem as though the WG > would ignore the reviewers at their own peril. Take a hot-button > sort of issue like congestion control. If the reviewers said "hey, > you need some congestion control or this won't fly" (with a few more > words, etc.) and the WG says "nope, we don't want it, we don't need > it, we can't have it" and the consensus of the WG is to forward the > document to the IESG then it isn't a "late surprise", rather it's a > "late problem" of the WG's creation when the IESG sends the document > back. I would think that when the WG and the reviewers are > completely at odds it could be the WG chair's job to try to work > through the issues. (Maybe bring in more reviewers or bring in an > AD or IAB member or other senior IETFer to try to explain the > rational behind some objection (e.g., "must have CC"). It would > behoove the WG to work with the reviewers in the long run, I think. > (And, yes, sometimes that is going to be tough for the WG to > understand.) See, the thing is, reviewers are people, too. Do high quality reviewers need "help"? As Mark points out, if you have people standing in meetings and on mailing lists saying "this is wrong, this needs help, this is misguided...", the WG does not have consensus, even if all the people saying this are "new". The IETF doesn't have membership, and IETF WGs don't have membership. When we act like the reviewers are "outsiders", it seems to me that we go off in the weeds and try to figure out ways to make insiders pay attention to outsiders, whether they want to or not. But it's not about insiders paying attention to outsiders, it's about listening to people who are willing to help, if you'll only listen. > > * If the WG is stubborn and shoots the document to the IESG anyway > then the early review doesn't necessarily help with the "IESG > overload" problem. But, it seems that early > cross-area/functional/whatever review could well present > opportunities to work out issues earlier rather than later. And, > WGs (and, specifically, WG chairs) should be wise enough to attempt > to work through the issues and not just say "we disagree". This WG chair behavior is key. > > * In the blatant cases where the WG chair does not try to work through > the issues then the IESG overload problem can be helped by the IESG > replacing the WG chair. > > Maybe we are thinking about authority a little to much. Maybe we should > be thinking in terms of collaboration and seeing how far that will take > us (a theme others have raised repeatedly). I think this is absolutely correct. I don't know why it seems more obvious tonight than previously. I like the mailing list name (although having the "m" stand for "management" is wrong), but it feels like we're slipping away from "empower" and into "power", and we just don't seem to work effectively when it's a power issuee. > > allman _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 23 13:57:18 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA16233 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 13:57:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ak6U5-0002VC-Em for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 13:56:49 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i0NIunPW009617 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 13:56:49 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ak6U5-0002V1-B0 for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 13:56:49 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA16217 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 13:56:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ak6U3-0006tK-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 13:56:47 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Ak6TB-0006ro-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 13:55:54 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ak6SL-0006qL-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 13:55:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ak6SL-0002Rq-Ve; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 13:55:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ak6SB-0002RG-9E for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 13:54:51 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA16155 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 13:54:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ak6S9-0006oS-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 13:54:49 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Ak6RG-0006nD-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 13:53:55 -0500 Received: from smtp.exodus.net ([66.35.230.237] helo=smtp02-w.exodus.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ak6Qc-0006jV-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 13:53:15 -0500 Received: from ms101.mail1.com (ms101.mail1.com [209.1.5.174]) by smtp02-w.exodus.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0NG2oEv029575 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 10:02:54 -0600 Received: from ala-mrwtemp.thingmagic.com (unverified [207.31.248.169]) by accounting.espmail.com (Rockliffe SMTPRA 5.2.5) with ESMTP id ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 10:52:35 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040123123348.044b55f0@ms101.mail1.com> X-Sender: margaret@thingmagic.com@ms101.mail1.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 12:45:16 -0500 To: mpowr@ietf.org From: Margaret Wasserman Cc: Thomas Narten Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [mpowr] Rough Strawman of MPOWR Charter Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Hi All, We have written a strawman MPOWR charter (see below). This charter is still quite rough and includes several open questions that are included in the text of the charter. There is also still an open question regarding whether there is community support to form a WG in this area at all, but we thought that a strawman charter might help us to focus our mailing list discussions. We are also planning to request a BOF on this topic in Seoul. Your feedback on the attached charter would be appreciated. Thomas Narten and Margaret Wasserman Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results (mpowr) [Version 03] Chair(s): TBD General Area Director: Harald Alvestrand General Area Advisor: Harald Alvestrand Mailing Lists: General Discussion: mpowr@ietf.org To Subscribe: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr Archive: http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/mpowr Description of Working Group: The MPOWR WG has two broad goals: (1) to clarify the roles and responsibilities of WG chairs, document editors and other WG participants, and (2) to shift more work and responsibility from the IESG to WG chairs, in those cases where doing so is likely to improve the overall work flow while still ensuring appropriate accountability to the IETF as a whole. As an example, it may be appropriate for WGs to more formally demonstrate that their documents have been adequately reviewed prior to having them be advanced. The MPOWR WG may choose to publish BCPs that update RFC 2418 and/or section 6 of RFC 2026, as needed to enact these clarifications or changes. The work of this group will follow a three stage process: (1) Reach a common understanding of the current roles and responsibilities of various parties (IESG, WG Chairs, Document Authors/Editors, WG participants) within IETF WGs, including how and if our current roles and responsibilities differ from those documented in RFCs 2418 and 2026. (2) Determine if changes are needed to our roles and responsibilities. If so, determine what changes are required, whether or not the changes require updates to RFCs 2418 or 2026, what the benefits of those changes are expected to be, and what impacts those changes may have on accountability, workload and participant motivation. (3) If the community believes that it is necessary and advisable, publish BCPs that update RFC 2418 and/or RFC 2026 (section 6) to clarify or modify our roles and responsibilities. [Question: Should the WG be chartered for this task up-front, or should the WG be re-chartered if it decides that this step is necessary?] This group will take an incremental approach to change, considering each proposed change separately and deciding whether or not to enact it. The group may later merge any changes that require BCP updates into a single pair of RFC 2418bis and RFC 2026bis documents. The WG is expected to produce the following work items (as needed): (1) An (Informational or BCP?) RFC describing the current roles and responsibilities of IESG members, WG chairs, Document Editors/Authors and WGs. This document should offer a high-level description of these roles, similar to the current descriptions in RFC 2418 (sections 1.2 and 6) and RFC 2026 (section 6). (2) A set of Internet Drafts proposing specific changes to IETF roles and responsibilities that will increase the effectiveness of the organization and move some responsibilities from the IESG to a wider group of IETF participants (such as WG Chairs, authors/editors or other WG participants). Each I-D should include an analysis of the proposed change describing what impact the change is expected to have on accountability, workload and participant motivation. Each I-D should also make it clear whether the change would require updates to the BCPs or could be achieved through procedural or cultural/attitude changes without requiring changes to the current BCPs. The WG may decide, on a case-by-case basis, to publish some of these I-Ds as Informational RFCs. (3) If the WG believes it is necessary, a set of BCP RFCs updating RFC 2418 and section 6 of RFC 2026 may be produced to update, clarify and/or modify the organizational and process roles of various parties within the IETF. (4) If the WG believes it is necessary, an updated version of work item (1) may be produced, documenting the desired roles of various parties within the IETF. [Question: Should we omit items 3 and 4 from this charter and indicate that the group should re-charter if these are considered necessary? Or include them now?] It would be a perfectly acceptable outcome for this WG to determine, after completing the first and second work items, that no updates to RFC 2418, RFC 2026 or work item (1) are required. [Question: Should we add wording to limit the scope of the changes that this WG is chartered to consider? For instance, should we explicitly state that this WG is not expected to make changes to the document track or the document approval process?] [Question: Should we including any wording about how this WG relates to the ICAR and NEWTRK efforts?] Goals and Milestones: [JAN 04 Community discussion of WG scope and goals] [FEB/MAR 04 WG chartered, if appropriate] MAY 04 Current Roles and Resp published as WG I-D JUL 04 First round of Change Proposals published as individual I-Ds for WG consideration AUG 04 First WG Last Call on Current Roles and Resp SEP 04 First round of Change Proposals published as WG I-Ds OCT 04 Current Roles and Resp submitted to IESG for Info DEC 04 WG consensus achieved on Change Proposals FEB 05 RFC 2418bis published as WG I-D FEB 05 RFC 2026bis published as WG I-D AUG 05 First WG Last Call on RFC 2418bis AUG 05 First WG Last Call on RFC 2026bis DEC 05 RFC 2418bis submitted to IESG for BCP DEC 05 RFC 2026bis submitted to IESG for BCP _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 23 14:57:21 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA18677 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 14:57:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ak7QE-0006cK-Pe for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 14:56:54 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i0NJusqT025437 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 14:56:54 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ak7QE-0006cA-Hu for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 14:56:54 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA18654 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 14:56:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ak7QB-0001Qm-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 14:56:51 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Ak7PI-0001Nk-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 14:55:57 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ak7OO-0001Kh-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 14:55:00 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ak7OQ-0006Um-Ml; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 14:55:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ak7OE-0006TN-CK for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 14:54:50 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA18518 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 14:54:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ak7OB-0001Ia-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 14:54:47 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Ak7NE-0001Gt-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 14:53:49 -0500 Received: from f070.brocade.com ([66.243.153.70] helo=blasphemy.brocade.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ak7MR-0001FU-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 14:52:59 -0500 Received: from hq-ex-3.corp.brocade.com (hq-ex-3 [192.168.38.35]) by blasphemy.brocade.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D2A214374; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 11:52:28 -0800 (PST) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [mpowr] Rough Strawman of MPOWR Charter Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 11:52:27 -0800 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [mpowr] Rough Strawman of MPOWR Charter Thread-Index: AcPh4nMPgWK3mNcISNy9qTSNRL+lpQABF1bw From: "Robert Snively" To: "Margaret Wasserman" , Cc: "Thomas Narten" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Your first question is=20 > There is also still an open question regarding whether there > is community support to form a WG in this area at all, but we > thought that a strawman charter might help us to focus our > mailing list discussions.=20 My first impression is that a good way to do this would be to create a single working group addressing the issues of empowerment, standards track, scalability, and=20 perhaps other issues. Within that working group, this would be one of the projects, so this would be a "project proposal" rather than a WG proposal. That way, these closely related subjects could be examined in a synergistic manner and appropriate RFC's created and/or modified as needed. I am sorry that I will not be able to join you folks in Seoul to consider these questions. > (3) If the community believes that it is necessary > and advisable, publish BCPs that update RFC 2418 > and/or RFC 2026 (section 6) to clarify or modify > our roles and responsibilities. [Question: Should > the WG be chartered for this task up-front, or > should the WG be re-chartered if it decides that > this step is necessary?] The WG should be chartered for this up-front. >=20 > [Question: Should we omit items 3 and 4 from this charter and > indicate that the group should re-charter if these are > considered necessary? Or include them now?] You have wisely phrased it so that if no change is needed, none need be done. As a result, items 3 and 4 definitely belong, since much of the work necessary to do them (if necessary) is already included within the charter of the WG. >=20 > [Question: Should we add wording to limit the scope of the > changes that this WG is chartered to consider? For instance, > should we explicitly state that this WG is not expected to > make changes to the document track or the document approval > process?] By its nature, changes in the empowerment of the WGs will make some kind of changes in the document track and the document approval process, so such limitations would not be desirable. >=20 > [Question: Should we including any wording about how this > WG relates to the ICAR and NEWTRK efforts?] >=20 There should be explicit liaison activities among these different activities, since a good idea in one may solve a problem in another. It is very important that the activities divide the work intelligently, since they are so closely related. In fact, I would have=20 proposed all three of these activities as separate but closely related projects within a single working group. I would suggest that you explicitly reference the draft "draft-ietf-problem-issue-statement-xx" and the related draft "draft-ietf-problem-process-xx" as source documents for this work. That way we will not miss any of the primary issues, nor will we have to repeat some of the work in determining the hoped for results of the=20 empowerment of the WG. _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 23 15:15:19 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA19252 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:15:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ak7hb-0004do-4B for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:14:51 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i0NKEpLR017836 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:14:51 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ak7ha-0004db-Ut for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:14:51 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA19219 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:14:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ak7hZ-00022X-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:14:49 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Ak7ge-00020v-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:13:53 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ak7fn-0001zf-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:12:59 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ak7fo-00047n-BU; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:13:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ak7fg-00045Z-Um for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:12:53 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA19157 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:12:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ak7ff-0001z0-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:12:51 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Ak7en-0001xg-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:11:58 -0500 Received: from key1.docomolabs-usa.com ([216.98.102.225] helo=fridge.docomolabs-usa.com ident=fwuser) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ak7e7-0001vb-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:11:15 -0500 Message-ID: <01a901c3e1ed$1df83390$5b6015ac@dclkempt40> From: "James Kempf" To: , "Margaret Wasserman" Cc: "Thomas Narten" References: <5.1.0.14.2.20040123123348.044b55f0@ms101.mail1.com> Subject: Re: [mpowr] Rough Strawman of MPOWR Charter Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 12:11:34 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Margaret, The charter looks good. W.r.t. the questions, I think it would be best to keep in the part about changes. We've already gone through one round of just analyzing the problem (namely the problem group), I think people are ready to discuss solutions. I also think it would make some amount of sense to talk about the relation to icar in particular. jak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Margaret Wasserman" To: Cc: "Thomas Narten" Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 9:45 AM Subject: [mpowr] Rough Strawman of MPOWR Charter > > Hi All, > > We have written a strawman MPOWR charter (see below). This > charter is still quite rough and includes several open > questions that are included in the text of the charter. > > There is also still an open question regarding whether there > is community support to form a WG in this area at all, but we > thought that a strawman charter might help us to focus our > mailing list discussions. We are also planning to request a > BOF on this topic in Seoul. > > Your feedback on the attached charter would be appreciated. > > Thomas Narten and Margaret Wasserman > > > Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results (mpowr) > > [Version 03] > > Chair(s): > TBD > > General Area Director: > Harald Alvestrand > > General Area Advisor: > Harald Alvestrand > > Mailing Lists: > General Discussion: mpowr@ietf.org > To Subscribe: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr > Archive: http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/mpowr > > Description of Working Group: > > The MPOWR WG has two broad goals: (1) to clarify the roles and > responsibilities of WG chairs, document editors and other WG > participants, and (2) to shift more work and responsibility from the > IESG to WG chairs, in those cases where doing so is likely to improve > the overall work flow while still ensuring appropriate accountability > to the IETF as a whole. As an example, it may be appropriate for WGs > to more formally demonstrate that their documents have been adequately > reviewed prior to having them be advanced. > > The MPOWR WG may choose to publish BCPs that update RFC 2418 and/or > section 6 of RFC 2026, as needed to enact these clarifications or > changes. > > The work of this group will follow a three stage process: > > (1) Reach a common understanding of the current roles and > responsibilities of various parties (IESG, WG Chairs, > Document Authors/Editors, WG participants) within IETF > WGs, including how and if our current roles and > responsibilities differ from those documented in RFCs > 2418 and 2026. > > (2) Determine if changes are needed to our roles and > responsibilities. If so, determine what changes are > required, whether or not the changes require updates > to RFCs 2418 or 2026, what the benefits of those > changes are expected to be, and what impacts those > changes may have on accountability, workload and > participant motivation. > > (3) If the community believes that it is necessary > and advisable, publish BCPs that update RFC 2418 > and/or RFC 2026 (section 6) to clarify or modify > our roles and responsibilities. [Question: Should > the WG be chartered for this task up-front, or > should the WG be re-chartered if it decides that > this step is necessary?] > > This group will take an incremental approach to change, considering > each proposed change separately and deciding whether or not to enact > it. The group may later merge any changes that require BCP updates > into a single pair of RFC 2418bis and RFC 2026bis documents. > > The WG is expected to produce the following work items (as needed): > > (1) An (Informational or BCP?) RFC describing the current > roles and responsibilities of IESG members, WG chairs, > Document Editors/Authors and WGs. This document should > offer a high-level description of these roles, similar > to the current descriptions in RFC 2418 (sections 1.2 > and 6) and RFC 2026 (section 6). > > (2) A set of Internet Drafts proposing specific > changes to IETF roles and responsibilities that > will increase the effectiveness of the organization > and move some responsibilities from the IESG > to a wider group of IETF participants (such as > WG Chairs, authors/editors or other WG participants). > > Each I-D should include an analysis of the proposed > change describing what impact the change is expected > to have on accountability, workload and participant > motivation. Each I-D should also make it clear whether > the change would require updates to the BCPs or could > be achieved through procedural or cultural/attitude > changes without requiring changes to the current BCPs. > The WG may decide, on a case-by-case basis, to publish > some of these I-Ds as Informational RFCs. > > (3) If the WG believes it is necessary, a set of BCP RFCs > updating RFC 2418 and section 6 of RFC 2026 may be > produced to update, clarify and/or modify the > organizational and process roles of various parties > within the IETF. > > (4) If the WG believes it is necessary, an updated version > of work item (1) may be produced, documenting the > desired roles of various parties within the IETF. > > [Question: Should we omit items 3 and 4 from this charter and > indicate that the group should re-charter if these are > considered necessary? Or include them now?] > > It would be a perfectly acceptable outcome for this WG to determine, > after completing the first and second work items, that no updates to > RFC 2418, RFC 2026 or work item (1) are required. > > [Question: Should we add wording to limit the scope of the > changes that this WG is chartered to consider? For instance, > should we explicitly state that this WG is not expected to > make changes to the document track or the document approval > process?] > > [Question: Should we including any wording about how this > WG relates to the ICAR and NEWTRK efforts?] > > Goals and Milestones: > > [JAN 04 Community discussion of WG scope and goals] > [FEB/MAR 04 WG chartered, if appropriate] > > MAY 04 Current Roles and Resp published as WG I-D > JUL 04 First round of Change Proposals published as > individual I-Ds for WG consideration > AUG 04 First WG Last Call on Current Roles and Resp > SEP 04 First round of Change Proposals published as WG I-Ds > OCT 04 Current Roles and Resp submitted to IESG for Info > DEC 04 WG consensus achieved on Change Proposals > FEB 05 RFC 2418bis published as WG I-D > FEB 05 RFC 2026bis published as WG I-D > AUG 05 First WG Last Call on RFC 2418bis > AUG 05 First WG Last Call on RFC 2026bis > DEC 05 RFC 2418bis submitted to IESG for BCP > DEC 05 RFC 2026bis submitted to IESG for BCP > > > > > _______________________________________________ > mpowr mailing list > mpowr@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr > _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 23 15:28:23 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA20172 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:28:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ak7uF-00076r-8d for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:27:55 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i0NKRtsR027328 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:27:55 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ak7uF-00076h-2n for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:27:55 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA20149 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:27:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ak7uD-0002Rn-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:27:53 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Ak7tI-0002Pi-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:26:57 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ak7sO-0002N1-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:26:00 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ak7sP-0006iO-6a; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:26:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ak7sC-0006gN-VP for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:25:48 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA20005 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:25:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ak7sB-0002LC-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:25:47 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Ak7rD-0002I6-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:24:47 -0500 Received: from smtp.exodus.net ([66.35.230.236]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ak7qF-0002EI-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:23:47 -0500 Received: from ms101.mail1.com (ms101.mail1.com [209.1.5.174]) by smtp.exodus.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0NM2gw3025061 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 14:02:42 -0800 Received: from ala-mrwtemp.thingmagic.com (unverified [207.31.248.169]) by accounting.espmail.com (Rockliffe SMTPRA 5.2.5) with ESMTP id ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 12:23:16 -0800 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040123150434.044b93b8@ms101.mail1.com> X-Sender: margaret@thingmagic.com@ms101.mail1.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:12:56 -0500 To: "Robert Snively" From: Margaret Wasserman Subject: RE: [mpowr] Rough Strawman of MPOWR Charter Cc: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Hi Robert, Thanks for the feedback! >My first impression is that a good way to do this would be >to create a single working group addressing the issues >of empowerment, standards track, scalability, and >perhaps other issues. Others have raised similar points on this list and the solutions list. My thoughts differ, though... I think of the General Area as the over-arching management structure, with each of these (hopefully coordinated) groups serving as a sub-project within that area. Harald has discussed his management methodology for the Internet area in at least two plenaries, and he has consciously decided to pursue a structure that consists of "small, sharp tools" rather than a widely-scoped, long-lived process WG (like the poised/poisson group of the past). There has been a general trend (I think) in the IETF to form WGs with smaller scopes and more limited charters, using the IESG/areas to coordinate activities between many small groups. I don't know if this is a good trend or not, but these changes have been made to solve problems with wide-scoped, long-lived WGs, and I don't have a proven, better way to solve those problems. > > [Question: Should we including any wording about how this > > WG relates to the ICAR and NEWTRK efforts?] > > > >There should be explicit liaison activities among these >different activities, since a good idea in one may >solve a problem in another. Can you suggest wording for the charter regarding what type of liaison activities these groups should have? >I would suggest that you explicitly reference the draft >"draft-ietf-problem-issue-statement-xx" and the related >draft "draft-ietf-problem-process-xx" as source documents >for this work. Okay. Do you think that we should explicitly state that this group is charged with addressing particular parts of the problem statement, or just provide a general reference? Margaret _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 23 15:57:23 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA21732 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:57:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ak8MI-0002Dd-PG for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:56:55 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i0NKusBB008528 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:56:54 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ak8MI-0002DR-J1 for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:56:54 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA21710 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:56:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ak8MH-0003Xb-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:56:53 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Ak8LL-0003Vn-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:55:56 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ak8KX-0003UP-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:55:05 -0500 Received: from optimus22.ietf.org ([132.151.6.22] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1Ak8KY-0002Vq-0U for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:55:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ak8KV-000295-DT; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:55:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ak8KO-00027V-So for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:54:56 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA21653 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:54:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ak8KN-0003TS-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:54:55 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Ak8Jc-0003Rw-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:54:08 -0500 Received: from f070.brocade.com ([66.243.153.70] helo=blasphemy.brocade.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ak8Im-0003L3-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:53:16 -0500 Received: from hq-ex-3.corp.brocade.com (hq-ex-3 [192.168.38.35]) by blasphemy.brocade.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 551AE143D3; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 12:52:45 -0800 (PST) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [mpowr] Rough Strawman of MPOWR Charter Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 12:52:45 -0800 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [mpowr] Rough Strawman of MPOWR Charter Thread-Index: AcPh7sMHx+i9bpatTeWQr5Vz3lEtZwAAIr6w From: "Robert Snively" To: "Margaret Wasserman" Cc: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >=20 > > > [Question: Should we including any wording about how this > > > WG relates to the ICAR and NEWTRK efforts?] > > > > > > >There should be explicit liaison activities among these > >different activities, since a good idea in one may > >solve a problem in another. >=20 > Can you suggest wording for the charter regarding what type > of liaison activities these groups should have? Try this. Though it may be a bit more explicit than you want in the text, we should certainly do most of it anyway. "The working group will determine and periodically review the requirements for liaison with other working groups addressing related administrative and procedural issues. At present the icar and newtrk efforts have been identified as required contacts. The liaison groups'=20 mailing lists will be explicitly notified of the posting of each new revision of the=20 working group's drafts. The liaison groups' mailing lists will be explicitly informed of each of the working group's consensus calls. The liaison groups will be requested and expected to express their consensus review of this working group's drafts at working group last call. The liaison groups' mailing lists will be provided the final list of last call comments and the resolution of those comments." >=20 > >I would suggest that you explicitly reference the draft > >"draft-ietf-problem-issue-statement-xx" and the related > >draft "draft-ietf-problem-process-xx" as source documents > >for this work. >=20 > Okay. Do you think that we should explicitly state that this > group is charged with addressing particular parts of the > problem statement, or just provide a general reference? I believe a general reference, similar to that made in the proposed draft for icar, would be appropriate. As we review those documents, those parts where mpowr will=20 address a particular issue should almost jump right out at us. And mpowr's work should be dedicated to not making any of the issues worse. Text like the following might be appropriate. "The work of the working group will consider relevant parts of the following reference drafts in its work. The draft "draft-ietf-problem-issue-statement-xx" provides a clear indication of many of the problems that the mpowr drafts need to address and avoid. Mpowr's efforts should be consistent with the proposed resolution process in the draft=20 "draft "draft-ietf-problem-process-xx"." =09 _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jan 26 21:18:52 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA02510 for ; Mon, 26 Jan 2004 21:18:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AlIo4-0007c5-Cu for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 26 Jan 2004 21:18:24 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i0R2IOeS029259 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 26 Jan 2004 21:18:24 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AlIo4-0007bq-8A for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 26 Jan 2004 21:18:24 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA02502 for ; Mon, 26 Jan 2004 21:18:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AlIo1-000727-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 26 Jan 2004 21:18:21 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AlIn7-00070O-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 26 Jan 2004 21:17:25 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AlImg-0006xk-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 26 Jan 2004 21:16:58 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AlImi-0007Zr-3j; Mon, 26 Jan 2004 21:17:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AlIm6-0007ST-2i for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 26 Jan 2004 21:16:22 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA02391 for ; Mon, 26 Jan 2004 21:16:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AlIm3-0006vL-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Mon, 26 Jan 2004 21:16:19 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AlIl6-0006rj-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Mon, 26 Jan 2004 21:15:21 -0500 Received: from sccrmhc12.comcast.net ([204.127.202.56]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AlIkH-0006mz-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Mon, 26 Jan 2004 21:14:29 -0500 Received: from dfnjgl21 (c-24-1-97-129.client.comcast.net[24.1.97.129]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc12) with SMTP id <20040127021359012002snsde> (Authid: sdawkins@comcast.net); Tue, 27 Jan 2004 02:14:00 +0000 Message-ID: <016901c3e47b$3b03a1f0$0400a8c0@DFNJGL21> Reply-To: "Spencer Dawkins" From: "Spencer Dawkins" To: "Margaret Wasserman" , "Thomas Narten" Cc: References: Subject: Re: [mpowr] Rough Strawman of MPOWR Charter Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 20:13:57 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Margaret and Thomas, I agree with Robert's sentiment - liasion with other general area working groups is a good thing, and we need to do it, but trying to keep charter text current with ongoing efforts within the general area seems more trouble than it's worth. I think this is why we have ADs, so that we don't have to write down all the ways that working groups in an area have to avoid tripping over each other. The first sentence Robert proposed was ""The working group will determine and periodically review the requirements for liaison with other working groups addressing related administrative and procedural issues". I assume that this is more like "the working group and the area director will determine", but it seems to allow all the details that followed without requiring changes to charter text if we find more effective ways to liase. Spencer "The working group chairs of all general area working groups should go out for kimchi on Tuesday afternoon during the most boring timeslot available..." ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Snively" To: "Margaret Wasserman" Cc: Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 2:52 PM Subject: RE: [mpowr] Rough Strawman of MPOWR Charter Try this. Though it may be a bit more explicit than you want in the text, we should certainly do most of it anyway. _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jan 27 01:55:59 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA09099 for ; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 01:55:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AlN8E-0003XB-H4 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 01:55:31 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i0R6tUwx013579 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 01:55:30 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AlN8E-0003Ww-CK for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 01:55:30 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA09091 for ; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 01:55:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AlN8B-00031h-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 01:55:27 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AlN7D-00030K-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 01:54:28 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AlN6m-0002z7-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 01:54:00 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AlN6m-0003Lc-Ot; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 01:54:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AlN6I-0003Kw-Df for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 01:53:30 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA09065 for ; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 01:53:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AlN6F-0002yS-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 01:53:27 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AlN5H-0002wo-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 01:52:28 -0500 Received: from netcore.fi ([193.94.160.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AlN4c-0002tW-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 01:51:47 -0500 Received: from localhost (pekkas@localhost) by netcore.fi (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i0R6p4419714; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 08:51:05 +0200 Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 08:51:04 +0200 (EET) From: Pekka Savola To: Margaret Wasserman cc: mpowr@ietf.org, Thomas Narten Subject: Re: [mpowr] Rough Strawman of MPOWR Charter In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20040123123348.044b55f0@ms101.mail1.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Comments inline. Seems to be basically good stuff. On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Margaret Wasserman wrote: > The work of this group will follow a three stage process: > > (1) Reach a common understanding of the current roles and > responsibilities of various parties (IESG, WG Chairs, > Document Authors/Editors, WG participants) within IETF > WGs, including how and if our current roles and > responsibilities differ from those documented in RFCs > 2418 and 2026. I've a concern on this. There seem to be roughly two separate camps with completely different beliefs on what the roles inside a WG are. It may be a huge challenge (and difficult to the chairs) to gain consensus unless that means blocking out input. But I guess this exercise must be done. The concern is that we get stuck at this item forever, and never get any further. > (3) If the community believes that it is necessary > and advisable, publish BCPs that update RFC 2418 > and/or RFC 2026 (section 6) to clarify or modify > our roles and responsibilities. [Question: Should > the WG be chartered for this task up-front, or > should the WG be re-chartered if it decides that > this step is necessary?] [...] > (3) If the WG believes it is necessary, a set of BCP RFCs > updating RFC 2418 and section 6 of RFC 2026 may be > produced to update, clarify and/or modify the > organizational and process roles of various parties > within the IETF. > > (4) If the WG believes it is necessary, an updated version > of work item (1) may be produced, documenting the > desired roles of various parties within the IETF. > > [Question: Should we omit items 3 and 4 from this charter and > indicate that the group should re-charter if these are > considered necessary? Or include them now?] I believe re-chartering would be appropriate, as it would keep the charter and the WG more focused at first, and provide a checkpoint at the later phase for the community to decide more explicitly whether these changes are what the IETF in general wants. However, I don't feel particularly strongly about this. > [Question: Should we add wording to limit the scope of the > changes that this WG is chartered to consider? For instance, > should we explicitly state that this WG is not expected to > make changes to the document track or the document approval > process?] I do not think this is necessary. Maybe you're referring to e.g., the cases where a new document track might allow a better facilities to the chairs from the first to assume responsibility (a bit doubtful, but if a series not requiring IESG approval is introduced, maybe yes), or that a different document approval process would make this easier (which is certainly the case)? It seems obvious that designing (and approving) those choices are out of scope. But I guess what you're asking is whether it would be OK to discuss the requirements for such changes in this changes from the MPOWR perspective, and then take them to the appropriate other WG(s), which I took as an implicit yes. > [Question: Should we including any wording about how this > WG relates to the ICAR and NEWTRK efforts?] I do not believe that is necessary -- all the charters will be available under general area anyway, and folks can read every one of them separately. We're not living in a vacuum. But I would not object to such language. > FEB 05 RFC 2418bis published as WG I-D > FEB 05 RFC 2026bis published as WG I-D > AUG 05 First WG Last Call on RFC 2418bis > AUG 05 First WG Last Call on RFC 2026bis > DEC 05 RFC 2418bis submitted to IESG for BCP > DEC 05 RFC 2026bis submitted to IESG for BCP The schedule (if we keep the later part of it, that is) could maybe be fast-tracked slightly, e.g., FEB, JUN, OCT. Seems reasonable as long as someone is willing to do editing, as we should already have rough concensus on the major changes we want to make. However, what's worrying me a bit is that the first last call outside of this WG for these change proposals is in Dec 05. That's about 2 years away. Shouldn't these change proposals be brought to the attention earlier, if not using the Last Call procedure, at least by presenting them at the plenary and soliciting feedback? Maybe that's a forum of communications which should be explicitly mentioned in the charter. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 30 06:36:31 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA10082 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 06:36:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AmWwP-0000dx-0i for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 06:36:05 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i0UBa4wc002472 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 06:36:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AmWwO-0000dn-T2 for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 06:36:04 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA10015 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 06:36:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AmWwL-0003qH-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 06:36:01 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AmWvM-0003hu-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 06:35:00 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AmWuL-0003VA-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 06:33:57 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AmWuO-0000Wz-Sy; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 06:34:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AmWtc-0000VN-CZ for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 06:33:12 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA09771 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 06:33:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AmWtY-0003QC-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 06:33:08 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AmWsb-0003Fx-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 06:32:10 -0500 Received: from eagle.ericsson.se ([193.180.251.53]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AmWs4-00038q-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 06:31:37 -0500 Received: from esealnt613.al.sw.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.125]) by eagle.ericsson.se (8.12.10/8.12.10/WIREfire-1.8b) with ESMTP id i0UBVXAh002727 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 12:31:33 +0100 Received: from lm9014.lmera.ericsson.se ([150.132.89.14]) by esealnt613.al.sw.ericsson.se with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2657.72) id DZZ9YCDK; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 12:31:33 +0100 From: "David Partain (LI/EAB)" Reply-To: David.Partain@ericsson.com Organization: Ericsson - http://www.ericsson.com To: mpowr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [mpowr] Re: Getting Bad Ideas to Fail Early Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 12:31:32 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.4 References: <020601c3d6fe$9a5513d0$606015ac@dclkempt40> <200401131136.03482.david.partain@ericsson.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200401301231.32440.david.partain@ericsson.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Greetings, Apologies for my silence... I recognize that this has morphed into an icar discussion. Perhaps we should move this thread there. I've tried to cut out stuff where I didn't really have any more to say. On Tuesday 13 January 2004 21.49, Alex Rousskov wrote: > On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, David Partain (LI/EAB) wrote: > > Who will a working group listen to? > > From process point of view, the working group does not have to listen > to any reviewer. They can, technically, mark each submitted review > with "we disagree" and let IESG resolve all the conflicts. This is certainly one world view. Another possible world view is that the IETF decides to create a review process that a WG must listen to. Yet another world view is that we should depend upon WGs to do the Right Thing in dealing with constructive criticism and take the proper technical decision. I'm sure there are a plethora of other possibilities as well. > > They currently must listen to the IESG. Is the IETF willing to > > invest reviewers with similar weight? > > IETF should be willing and able to design exit criteria that allow > some documents to get published without IESG involvement. Why is that the case? I'm unconvinced that that would be a good thing. > In other words, reviewers can "clear" a document (if all reviewers and > the WG agrees and there is sufficient coverage). However, reviewers > cannot kill the document. Only IESG can. Again, isn't that what has to be decided? I'm unconvinced one way or another. I see real value in "review early, review often" and with a sledgehammer that can be One of my big concerns, however, is that I very seriously doubt that there are going to be very many cases where reviewers are going to be able to point to clear "principles of the Internet" in using their sledgehammer. I suspect that those wanting to weild a sledgehammer are going to want to do so more because of gut reactions, some overriding sense of unease. I'm certain that they'll be able to point out technical reasons, but I don't know if it'll be possible to point to particular clauses in our ephemeral Internet architecture. > > What do we do if the WG refuses to acknowledge that an idea is > > "bad" and forges ahead? > > Wait for IESG to decide. It would be nice to design some procedure for > IESG to decide sooner (early) rather than at PS stage. Might be a very good idea, but at the risk of making them interrupt driven, which I personally find to be a hard way to work. Cheers, David _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 30 09:42:49 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA18813 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 09:42:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AmZqg-0003m0-Bl for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 09:42:22 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i0UEgMYb014498 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 09:42:22 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AmZqg-0003ll-7v for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 09:42:22 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA18797 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 09:42:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AmZqe-0004jC-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 09:42:20 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AmZpq-0004c0-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 09:41:31 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AmZpM-0004Tj-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 09:41:00 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AmZpN-0003fO-RQ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 09:41:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AmZoa-0003XX-Nj for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 09:40:12 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA18635 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 09:40:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AmZoY-0004RI-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 09:40:10 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AmZnY-0004Jq-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 09:39:08 -0500 Received: from eagle.ericsson.se ([193.180.251.53]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AmZma-0004Cw-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 09:38:08 -0500 Received: from esealnt611.al.sw.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.121]) by eagle.ericsson.se (8.12.10/8.12.10/WIREfire-1.8b) with ESMTP id i0UEc7Ah010019 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 15:38:07 +0100 Received: from lm9014.lmera.ericsson.se ([150.132.89.14]) by esealnt611.al.sw.ericsson.se with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2657.72) id D77X4F50; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 15:38:10 +0100 From: "David Partain (LI/EAB)" Reply-To: David.Partain@ericsson.com Organization: Ericsson - http://www.ericsson.com To: mpowr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [mpowr] Re: Getting Bad Ideas to Fail Early Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 15:38:06 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.4 References: <20040120141958.C8D3577A6FA@guns.icir.org> In-Reply-To: <20040120141958.C8D3577A6FA@guns.icir.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200401301538.06548.david.partain@ericsson.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi all, Thanks, Mark, for your answer. On Tuesday 20 January 2004 15.19, Mark Allman wrote: > You definately raise a whole lot of good questions (probably better > suited for ICAR, but...). Thanks! > > But, I want to say a few words about this... > > > That said, this won't be even remotely trivial. I just don't > > see how we can get away from the fact that that would require > > a set of experienced people outside the WG who can provide an > > "IESG-like" review at semi-regular intervals in a document's > > path through the WG. But those reviews must also have > > "IESG-like" weight, or the exercise may indeed be pointless. > > I am not sure I agree with this... > > * First, if the WG and the reviewers are 180-degrees different in > their thinking then it would seem as if the WG chair could > reasonably say that there is no consensus. Agreed. What happens after that is what's interesting. > That would assume that > the reviewers would then work closely with the WG to fix things (or, > they wouldn't be part of the WG consensus determination). That may > or may not happen -- sort of depends on what the early review > mechanism looks like. Doesn't this (getting consensus) working assume (at least) two things? 1. the working group has some reason to respect the opinion (good people, history, quality of remarks, obviousness of the problems they point out) and (2) the working group isn't stacked with folks who have An Agenda that precludes listening to criticism. Not that _that_ would ever happen... I _would love_ for things to work this way. I fear, though, that calling someone's baby ugly is invariably going to result in a defensive posture. > * Given a high quality review team it would seem as though the WG > would ignore the reviewers at their own peril. Fair enough. Perhaps a mechanism requiring review reports to go to the IESG _as well as_ the WG would provide the necessary heads up that something's amiss? > I would think that when the WG and the reviewers are > completely at odds it could be the WG chair's job to try to work > through the issues. This isn't really that different from dealing with significant conflicts within the WG constituency, is it? > (Maybe bring in more reviewers or bring in an > AD or IAB member or other senior IETFer to try to explain the > rational behind some objection (e.g., "must have CC"). It would > behoove the WG to work with the reviewers in the long run, I think. > (And, yes, sometimes that is going to be tough for the WG to > understand.) I think you and I agree. Perhaps, though, a formalization of the communication between the WG and reviewers which includes the IESG in the loop -- without necessarily requiring that they _do_ something -- would be sufficient to make external reviews useful. > * If the WG is stubborn and shoots the document to the IESG anyway > then the early review doesn't necessarily help with the "IESG > overload" problem. But, it seems that early > cross-area/functional/whatever review could well present > opportunities to work out issues earlier rather than later. And, > WGs (and, specifically, WG chairs) should be wise enough to attempt > to work through the issues and not just say "we disagree". If nothing else, it provides the IESG with some external "hard facts", which are not always available to a sufficient extent today (as I understand it). > * In the blatant cases where the WG chair does not try to work through > the issues then the IESG overload problem can be helped by the IESG > replacing the WG chair. > > Maybe we are thinking about authority a little to much. Maybe we should > be thinking in terms of collaboration and seeing how far that will take > us (a theme others have raised repeatedly). You cannot imagine how much I hope the result of this work is exactly that -- a refinement / clarification of the consensus process rather than an introduction of chains of authority. Our consensus tradition is absolutely one of the strengths of the IETF. However, I fear for the long-term health of our current system. The source of my anxiety is more sociological than anything else. A consensus-driven process thrives in a setting where there's a common set of values, where people "just know" how things are done and don't violate these unwritten rules. I live in a society (Sweden) where this is exactly the case and things work relatively smoothly. The crunch comes when the homogeneity of the society is altered (as is happening here and in the IETF now) and those common values cease to be as clear to everyone. This certainly has thrown things off kilter in the IETF and I'm worried that any attempt to codify the "common values" and "unwritten rules" is going to be very difficult. I guess we'll all find out. But now I'm babbling, so I'll move on... Wishing you all a good weekend, David _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 30 17:46:59 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA04248 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:46:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AmhPE-0000zp-Dk for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:46:32 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i0UMkWfb003830 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:46:32 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AmhPE-0000ze-6d for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:46:32 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA03613 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:46:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AmhPB-0005er-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:46:29 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AmhOI-0005Yw-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:45:35 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AmhNj-0005SP-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:44:59 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AmhNl-0000s2-4p; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:45:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AmhNI-0000rV-BG for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:44:32 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA01370 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:44:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AmhNF-0005Rk-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:44:29 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AmhML-0005Le-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:43:34 -0500 Received: from key1.docomolabs-usa.com ([216.98.102.225] helo=fridge.docomolabs-usa.com ident=fwuser) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AmhLp-0005F2-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:43:01 -0500 Message-ID: <035e01c3e782$7601a590$606015ac@dclkempt40> From: "James Kempf" To: , References: <20040120141958.C8D3577A6FA@guns.icir.org> <200401301538.06548.david.partain@ericsson.com> Subject: Re: [mpowr] Re: Getting Bad Ideas to Fail Early Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 13:57:28 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit David, I think we need to make a distinction between the IESG approving publishing a document, as currently, and a change where an individual AD could approve a document. I can see a process where, if the reviews come in good and the WG agrees to make any proposed changes, an individual AD is allowed to simply approve publication without requiring the entire IESG to review or even to have to read the reviewers comments. This could save the IESG a lot of work. I can't see a case where the document gets approved automatically without the AD's involvement. I believe there will always be an element of judgement in deciding whether the reviews were adequate, the WG's response was appropriate, etc. that one would want to have a knowledgable human in the loop for publication approval. jak ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Partain (LI/EAB)" To: Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 6:38 AM Subject: Re: [mpowr] Re: Getting Bad Ideas to Fail Early > Hi all, > > Thanks, Mark, for your answer. > > On Tuesday 20 January 2004 15.19, Mark Allman wrote: > > You definately raise a whole lot of good questions (probably better > > suited for ICAR, but...). Thanks! > > > > But, I want to say a few words about this... > > > > > That said, this won't be even remotely trivial. I just don't > > > see how we can get away from the fact that that would require > > > a set of experienced people outside the WG who can provide an > > > "IESG-like" review at semi-regular intervals in a document's > > > path through the WG. But those reviews must also have > > > "IESG-like" weight, or the exercise may indeed be pointless. > > > > I am not sure I agree with this... > > > > * First, if the WG and the reviewers are 180-degrees different in > > their thinking then it would seem as if the WG chair could > > reasonably say that there is no consensus. > > Agreed. What happens after that is what's interesting. > > > That would assume that > > the reviewers would then work closely with the WG to fix things (or, > > they wouldn't be part of the WG consensus determination). That may > > or may not happen -- sort of depends on what the early review > > mechanism looks like. > > Doesn't this (getting consensus) working assume (at least) > two things? 1. the working group has some reason to respect the > opinion (good people, history, quality of remarks, obviousness > of the problems they point out) and (2) the working group > isn't stacked with folks who have An Agenda that precludes > listening to criticism. Not that _that_ would ever happen... > > I _would love_ for things to work this way. I fear, though, > that calling someone's baby ugly is invariably going to result > in a defensive posture. > > > * Given a high quality review team it would seem as though the WG > > would ignore the reviewers at their own peril. > > Fair enough. Perhaps a mechanism requiring review reports to go > to the IESG _as well as_ the WG would provide the necessary heads > up that something's amiss? > > > I would think that when the WG and the reviewers are > > completely at odds it could be the WG chair's job to try to work > > through the issues. > > This isn't really that different from dealing with significant > conflicts within the WG constituency, is it? > > > (Maybe bring in more reviewers or bring in an > > AD or IAB member or other senior IETFer to try to explain the > > rational behind some objection (e.g., "must have CC"). It would > > behoove the WG to work with the reviewers in the long run, I think. > > (And, yes, sometimes that is going to be tough for the WG to > > understand.) > > I think you and I agree. Perhaps, though, a formalization of the > communication between the WG and reviewers which includes the > IESG in the loop -- without necessarily requiring that they _do_ > something -- would be sufficient to make external reviews useful. > > > * If the WG is stubborn and shoots the document to the IESG anyway > > then the early review doesn't necessarily help with the "IESG > > overload" problem. But, it seems that early > > cross-area/functional/whatever review could well present > > opportunities to work out issues earlier rather than later. And, > > WGs (and, specifically, WG chairs) should be wise enough to attempt > > to work through the issues and not just say "we disagree". > > If nothing else, it provides the IESG with some external "hard > facts", which are not always available to a sufficient extent > today (as I understand it). > > > * In the blatant cases where the WG chair does not try to work through > > the issues then the IESG overload problem can be helped by the IESG > > replacing the WG chair. > > > > Maybe we are thinking about authority a little to much. Maybe we should > > be thinking in terms of collaboration and seeing how far that will take > > us (a theme others have raised repeatedly). > > You cannot imagine how much I hope the result of this work is > exactly that -- a refinement / clarification of the consensus > process rather than an introduction of chains of authority. > Our consensus tradition is absolutely one of the strengths > of the IETF. However, I fear for the long-term health of our > current system. > > The source of my anxiety is more sociological than anything > else. A consensus-driven process thrives in a setting where > there's a common set of values, where people "just know" > how things are done and don't violate these unwritten rules. > I live in a society (Sweden) where this is exactly the case > and things work relatively smoothly. The crunch comes when the > homogeneity of the society is altered (as is happening here and > in the IETF now) and those common values cease to be as clear > to everyone. This certainly has thrown things off kilter in > the IETF and I'm worried that any attempt to codify the "common > values" and "unwritten rules" is going to be very difficult. > I guess we'll all find out. > > But now I'm babbling, so I'll move on... > > Wishing you all a good weekend, > > David > > > > _______________________________________________ > mpowr mailing list > mpowr@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr > _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr