Subject: Re: [mpowr] Re: Getting Bad Ideas to Fail Early

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2004 23:12:50 -0800

--On 30. januar 2004 12:31 +0100 "David Partain (LI/EAB)" 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> > 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.

that would be no change ... the IESG document evaluation process is 
currently highly interrupt driven - the interrupt is the other ADs putting 
documents on the agenda.....

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

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 12:13:37 -0500

--On Monday, 09 February, 2004 23:12 -0800 Harald Tveit 
Alvestrand <[email-masked]> wrote:

>>> > 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.
>>
> that would be no change ... the IESG document evaluation
> process is currently highly interrupt driven - the interrupt
> is the other ADs putting documents on the agenda.....

Different answer, complementary to Harald's.  If the AD 
responsible for a particular WG concludes that the WG is 
promoting "bad" ideas and can't get unstuck from them, has a 
very wide range of mechanisms available for focusing the WG's 
attention.  We can discuss how these should be exercised, what 
degree of consultation should be required and with whom, etc., 
but the basic mechanisms remain.  They include:

	* Additional, forceful, explanations of why the idea is
	bad and isn't going anywhere. ("reading of the riot act"
	is probably a member of this category)
	
	* Replacing WG Chairs
	
	* Rechartering the WG to eliminate the task(s) that the
	WG doesn't want to get right.
	
	* Closing the WG entirely.

With the possible exception of the third (I can't think of an 
example at the moment) each of these has been used, at one time 
or another, in the past.  They are not new, and do not require 
procedural changes.

    john

---

From: David Partain <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 10:19:44 +0100

Good day,

This feels really ICAR-ish.  I hate to just move it, though,
for fear of losing participants.  Maybe the thread'll end now,
though.

> On Monday, 09 February, 2004 23:12 -0800 Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]> wrote:

Let's just say that I don't envy them their task.

On Tuesday 10 February 2004 18.13, John C Klensin wrote:
> attention.

And rightly so.

> We can discuss how these should be exercised, what 

Yes, I understand and those are all rational ways to deal with
eventual problems.  Perhaps ICAR can provide additional input to
allow these things to happen (when needed) more speedily.

Cheers,

David

-- 
Text after this signature is inserted automatically in
accordance with Ericsson corporate policy.  It's not my fault.

This communication is confidential and intended solely for the addressee(s). Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you believe this message has been sent to you in error, please notify the sender by replying to this transmission and delete the message without disclosing it. Thank you.

E-mail including attachments is susceptible to data corruption, interruption, unauthorized amendment, tampering and viruses, and we only send and receive e-mails on the basis that we are not liable for any such corruption, interception, amendment, tampering or viruses or any consequences thereof.