Re: [Geopriv] Irregularity at the GEOPRIV Meeting at IETF 68

[Bernard Aboba <aboba at internaut.com>]

In reading the messages posted to the list relating to the GEOPRIV WG 
meeting at IETF 68, it strikes me that we have a situation in which
a deadlock was allowed to persist for much too long. 

Whether "standard" or "alternative" mechanisms of consensus determination
can resolve this situation seems almost besides the point -- a huge amount
of energy and time has already been wasted. 

Looking backwards, many of the IETF's most heated battles did in fact
resolve themselves in clear outcomes, but only years afterwards once
it become clear that one or more of the proposed approaches had little
or no support in the marketplace.  For example, recall the 
LDP vs. RSVP-TE debate. 

Given this, I would suggest that debating whether the IESG did the
right or wrong thing at IETF 68 is somewhat besides the point. 

Instead, I would like to ask whether we are furthering
the interest of the Internet community by allowing deadlocks to
persist for long periods, rather than quickly recognizing them and
defusing the situation by publishing the competing
approaches, allowing the market to decide which one is "best".

Cullen Jennings said:

"Area Directors who manipulate schedules and agendas in order to 
predetermine the outcome of consensus calls should, in our opinion, be 
summarily recalled, and if the GEOPRIV working group chairs believe this 
transpired in IETF 68, we urge them to pursue such a recourse."

Ted Hardie said:

I urge them not to.  Let's try to work this out without creaking into 
effect a never-used aspect of our process.  Pushing it to that extreme 
looks contrary to our usual effort to achieve consensus; let's continue 
talking to each other instead.  If either the Area Directors or chairs is 
no longer willing to talk about the problems and resolve them, I think 
we're in a sorry state.  If we've gotten there, let's try and back away.

John Schnizlein said:

There is reason to suspect that the maneuvers in Prague are part of
an agenda to move control over a host's location from the host to the
network operator in order to create a business of providing it.
There is a pattern with implications on the outcome of the WG, not
just procedural lapse.

Martin Dawson said:

The conspiracy theory is quite simply wrong. 

James Polk said:

energy and misrepresentation doesn't make things right either....

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf