Subject: Perceived consensus on Problem Doc

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 23:23:32 +0900

Regarding the 2nd Last Call issue on "IETF Problem Statement"  
(http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-problem-issue- 
statement-05.txt)

After reviewing the issues brought up during the 2nd Last Call on this  
document the co-chairs believe that there were no issues related to  
those brought up in the 1st Last Call  brought up that warrant going  
though another editing cycle on this document.  We believe that at this  
time there is rough consensus for passing the document on to the  
General Area AD for IESG consideration.

This is not to say that there weren't some old and some new issues  
brought up.  These issues, while they did not pertain to a 2nd Last  
Call, will be passed on to the General Area AD.

Some of the issues were:

- Structural Issues with the document such as too long section titles
- Wordsmithing issues

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

- Some of the description of problems are not sufficiently brutal or  
blunt enough and don't have the full impact they should have.
- Some of the descriptions of problems are too brutal and blunt and  
perhaps give the impression of being more real then they really are.   
I.e. the document does not adequately differentiate between problems as  
being perceived and problems as being real.

       These two poles were discussed at length during the year during  
which the document was being developed, and the wording in the document  
is a compromise meant to fall between the two extreme positions.  The  
introduction does mention that work is based on a set of perceived  
problems.

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

Further Issues include:

- that WG chairs are not specifically mentioned among those who can be  
responsible for procedural blocks.
- that the selection of WG chairs is often not an open process
- that the IETF culture may be inappropriate for its purpose and not  
merely misunderstood.
- that there are no membership qualifications
- that a comparison to other organizations has not been done to find  
better models for the organization
- that the steps WG should go through are no sufficiently defined
- that WG rules and especially document format are obsolete.
- that there is a lack of formal recognition for those in the WG who do  
the work

Some of these issues had been discussed at length during the year this  
document has been in preparation, and the comments did not offer a  
significantly new or different approach then had been offered before.

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

Our thanks to everyone who participated in contributing their views on  
the IETF and its process,  to those who commented during the two last  
calls,  to the editing team and the editor.

Melinda and Avri
(co-chairs)

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 06:37:17 -0800

Avri,
You still have not dealt with the issues of the release
process or in validating that anyone submitting IP to
the IETF has the legal ability to do so...

Todd

----- Original Message -----
From: "Avri Doria" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 6:23 AM
Subject: Perceived consensus on Problem Doc

> Regarding the 2nd Last Call issue on "IETF Problem
Statement"
(http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-problem
-issue-

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 09:56:37 -0500

On Dec 3, 2003, at 9:23 AM, Avri Doria wrote:

> though another editing cycle on this document.  We believe that at 
> this time there is rough consensus for passing the document on to the 

Well, I believe you're wrong about that, and I specifically object to 
the chairs' moving this document forward without due consideration of 
Last Call comments.

As it seems a bit ridiculous to appeal to IESG an action to send a 
document to IESG that IESG probably feels it can't really object to 
(since it criticizes IESG), I'm somewhat at a loss as to what to do 
next, but I believe this action is highly inappropriate, and it calls 
this entire WG's output into doubt.

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 11:33:47 -0500 (EST)

thanks for the good (and not easy) work in chairing this effort!

Scott

---

From: Alex Conta <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 17:29:55 -0500

Avri,

The fact that some of the issues were discussed before, at length or 
not, does not change the fact that they were not mentioned in the 
document which was in Last Call. Not addressing those issues in the 
document means that some of the Last Call comments remain unresolved.

Regards,
Alex

---

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 07:37:08 +0900

Hi Alex,

This was a Second Last Call and as with all Second Last Calls was to be 
restricted to issues that were brought up in the First Last Call.

But since the issues were brought up, they will be reported to the IESG.

a.

On torsdag, dec 4, 2003, at 07:29 Asia/Seoul, Alex Conta wrote:

>> After reviewing the issues brought up during the 2nd Last Call on 
>> this  document the co-chairs believe that there were no issues 
>> related to  those brought up in the 1st Last Call  brought up that 
>> warrant going  though another editing cycle on this document.  We 
>> believe that at this  time there is rough consensus for passing the 
>> document on to the  General Area AD for IESG consideration.
>>  I.e. the document does not adequately differentiate between problems 
>> as  being perceived and problems as being real.
>>  which the document was being developed, and the wording in the 
>> document  is a compromise meant to fall between the two extreme 
>> positions.  The  introduction does mention that work is based on a 
>> set of perceived  problems.
>> ------------------
>> Further Issues include:
>> - that WG chairs are not specifically mentioned among those who can 
>> be  responsible for procedural blocks.
>> - that there is a lack of formal recognition for those in the WG who 
>> do  the work
>> Some of these issues had been discussed at length during the year 
>> this  document has been in preparation, and the comments did not 
>> offer a  significantly new or different approach then had been 
>> offered before.
>> -----------------
>> Our thanks to everyone who participated in contributing their views 
>> on  the IETF and its process,  to those who commented during the two 
>> last  calls,  to the editing team and the editor.
>> Melinda and Avri
>> (co-chairs)
> <smime.p7s>

---

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 09:28:25 +0900

On onsdag, dec 3, 2003, at 23:56 Asia/Seoul, Keith Moore wrote:

>> this document the co-chairs believe that there were no issues related 
>> to those brought up in the 1st Last Call  brought up that warrant 
>> going though another editing cycle on this document.  We believe that 
>> at this time there is rough consensus for passing the document on to 
>> the General Area AD for IESG consideration.
>

We had two last calls and dealt with the problems raised during the 
first last call with extensive discussions and changes to the document. 
The second last call was to review changes made because of the first 
last call.

When this WG started one of the first issues we reached rough consensus 
on was that in a document like this, or the process doc for that 
matter, we would never be able to get full consensus and would never be 
able to capture all of the problems people saw or would never be able 
to eliminate mention of perceived problems that someone did not see.  
In other words, the WG agreed at that time that rough consensus would 
be the best we would achieve.  We could cycle this document forever in 
a vain attempt to get full consensus as it does contain compromise, and 
compromise never goes down easily.

> this entire WG's output into doubt.

I disagree with three points here.

- The document goes to great pains to differentiate between criticism 
of the IESG membership and the IESG process.  While there is certainly 
criticism of IESG process, I feel the document is rather scrupulous in 
not criticizing the IESG members.

- From what I know of the IESG and its members, I have no doubt that if 
they find something seriously wrong with the document or if in the IETF 
Last Call (which the room recommended in Minneapolis even though this 
was an Informational document) some major lack of consensus on the part 
of the IETF body politic is discovered, they will do their duty and 
send it back with one or more DISCUSS issues.  In other words, I do 
trust that they will not be cowed by any perception some may have that 
this document criticizes them.

- In any tehcno-political document, and the output of this WG, in my 
opinion, falls into this category, there is always doubt on at least 
someone's part.   Given the review this document has gotten from the WG 
and will get from the IESG and the community at large I think that when 
it is published, assuming the IESG decides to do so, it will reflect 
the rough consensus of the IETF community and will reflect well on this 
WG.

a.

---

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 10:02:50 +0900

The Problem document does deal with many of the issues that are 
inherent in the IETF Standards process.  So while it does not 
explicitly get into the comparison with other SDO release processes or 
use the release language of these other SDOs, it does open the door to 
discussions about the IETF engineering and document process.  In fact a 
BOF was held and a mailing list established for discussing the IETF 
Standard process as a result of some of the problem WG discussions.

As for the IPR issue, there is a WG that focuses exclusively on IPR 
issues.  I think that would be the right venue for discussions about 
validating those who submit IPR claims.

a.

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 23:19:42 -0800

Avri - the core issue the IPRights working group was to
deal with was the IP issues. Right? - well if its true
that the current submission model does not provide any
reliable conveyance of "a right to publish the
submitted materials" then the entire process if flamed.

Todd

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 14:15:06 -0800

> submitted materials" then the entire process if flamed.

Todd,

this was taken up in the IPR group, and well-nigh beaten to death there. 
The model that we use has not been found flawed (at least not in the way 
you assume) by any of the participating lawyers.

And anyway, it's not directly relevant to the Problem WG's document.