Subject: RE: Strategy for VPN work in IETF

From: "Bilel Jamoussi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 21:07:46 -0400

Alex, 

<cut>
 
1. Changes will induce additional delays

   I should have communicated this better, I think. The fact that
   we're talking about two separate WGs does NOT mean that work within
   PPVPN is stopped. As my message said, the new WGs would be
   announced at the same time as the current one would be closed.
   Until then, the only discussion happening on the new WG's mailing
   lists would be about the charter and the PPVPN would conduct
   business as usual. We're closely coordinating with Marco and Rick,
   so all decisions taken within PPVPN will be effective in the new
   WGs.

bnj> Are you implying that the current WG chairs agreed to the split? Or are
they also being "informed" of a decision?

<...>.

6. Let's see who's complaining, what the concerns are, whether they
   are valid, etc, etc.

   Management of WGs within areas is part of the AD's
   responsibilities. While doing so, we talk to different IETF
   participants, document authors, WG chairs, collect opinions, then
   compare those with our observations, and apply our judgement to
   decide whether something needs to be changed and how.

   Given that these processes happen under the confidentiality
   conditions, it would not be productive and/or constructive to do
   this in public. It does mean that a leap of faith in ADs is needed,
   but I don't think we can efficiently operate without it--someone
   has to be able to make the decisions.

Hope this helps.

bnj> not really - it looks like a solution was cooked up behind closed door
to an inexistent / unexplained problem - this goes counter to the open and
transparent process the IETF prides itself of!

Bilel.

---

From: Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 01:08:13 -0700

Bilel,

>    so all decisions taken within PPVPN will be effective in the new

bnj>> Are you implying that the current WG chairs agreed to the split?
bnj>> Or are they also being "informed" of a decision?

I imply what I say, and I don't appreciate people putting words in
my mouth.

Regarding your question, we did have a number of conversations with
the chairs before I sent the message to this list. If you would like
to know Marco's or Rick's opinion on this subject, my recommendation
would be to send them an e-mail and ask.

> Hope this helps.

bnj>> not really - it looks like a solution was cooked up behind closed door
> transparent process the IETF prides itself of!

You are misrepresenting the situation here.

It is perfectly reasonable for ADs to form an opinion by talking to
IETF participants and WG chairs not using the microphone in the room
and by exchanging e-mails not using a public mailing list.

It is also reasonable for them to analyze the situation and bring a
proposed solution to the community.

Regarding openness of the process, you probably noticed that we're
discussing the proposed plan in the open. Based on the feedback
received, the involved ADs will decide whether it needs to be changed
or not.

Alex