 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We're rapidly approaching diminishing returns here...
Brian E Carpenter wrote:On 2007-01-15 17:11, Michael Thomas wrote:This rather assumes that the chairs and/or authors are always able
Michael Thomas, Cisco Systems
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Why not simply: - copy all Comments and Discusses to the WG mailing list - hold all discussions on the WG mailing list until resolution
Why would we do this for technical typos and other things that are essentially trivial? I'd expect an AD to enter WG discussion when raising fundamental issues, but not for straightforward points.
This seems sort of like a red herring to me: typo posts typically don't elicit much wg discussion in my experience. But please help me here: it seems that DISCUSS as currently instantiated is a conversation between the authors/wg chairs acting as liasons with the IESG. This sets up sort of a representative democracy kind of situation vs. a direct democracy that would be a conversation directly on the wg list. I can understand the IESG's desire for filtering, but that does place a lot of power in the hands of the wg's representatives. And power always begats abuse at some point... is this really what was intended?
Abuse wasn't intended, obviously, but delegation was.
Put simply, ~200 WG Chairs scale better than ~16 ADs.
to remember not only the material that is currently before the IESG, but
also the history of how it got there. As an author, it's hard enough to
keep track of the former and the latter is back in the realm of the super-human
again.
That is even more true for the ADs, who see several hundred drafts a year on their screens. Authors and WG Chairs are *much* better placed to remember the history and context than an AD. ADs have to look back in the tracker and email archives each time they need context.
So when you get a DISCUSS which may well involve the intricacies
of a very long and hard slog in the working group where many competing
parties finally agreed to a consensus... how as the representatives do you know
whether you are telegraphing the will of the working group? It's very hard,
and at a late date it is *very* easy to make very basic mistakes again which
not only negate the consensus of the working group, but are potentially
just plain wrong. And that's assuming that there are no agendas, hidden or
otherwise.
Yes. Which is exactly why substantive issues are to be taken back to the WG by the PROTO shepherd. Nobody is arguing otherwise, I hope.
So all in all, for an otherwise rather direct democratic kind of institution, I
find the implied(?) representative nature of the backend linkages, non-
transparency of process, and the juxtaposition of a fresh-but-disinterested
ruling body next to the inured-but-interested working group sets the stage
for a lot of potential process problems/abuses/surrender-and-ship-it kind of
outcomes. That doesn't seem right.
I think you are deeply misunderstanding how PROTO shepherding is supposed to work.
Brian
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.