Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft-klensin-rfc2821bis

[SM <sm at resistor.net>]

At 10:50 19-06-2008, Russ Housley wrote:
> That seems to be the crux of the appeal.  Does every possible thing
> upon which an AD can raise a DISCUSS position need to align with a
> written rule?  Don't we select leaders because we have some
> confidence in their judgement?

A process gets constrained if we have to go by written rules 
only.  However, without such rules one has to resort to second 
guessing to determine what the rules might be.  Written rules are a 
way to set the expectations and bring in openness and fairness into 
the process.  The decision-making process is hampered if the rules 
are too rigid.  That's why guiding principles are defined.

By selecting leaders, we are demonstrating confidence in them.  As in 
any process, disputes may aFrom ietf-bounces at ietf.org  Thu Jun 19 23:40:48 2008
Return-Path: <ietf-bounces at ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-archive at megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive at core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A67A3A683E;
	Thu, 19 Jun 2008 23:40:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ietf at core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf at core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C36E3A683E;
	Thu, 19 Jun 2008 23:40:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.001
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5
	tests=[BAYES_50=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id SXJ5fNfoTRht; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 23:40:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ns1.qubic.net (ns1.qubic.net [208.69.177.116])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AB0F3A6812;
	Thu, 19 Jun 2008 23:40:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from subman.resistor.net ([10.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0)
	by ns1.qubic.net (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id m5K6eV5P006477
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO);
	Thu, 19 Jun 2008 23:40:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail;
	t=1213944045; x=1214030445; bh=EakL8o0QJTpyU1n2kaTaxtpTcDUUPyQQednc
	Z6nWI6U=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:
	Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=Ry+8p7UfjSMQk7U2mYTYvlazy7Co8c4hpL
	EnuV3ea/UCnQBSy4KM0/DKd2Oo5AJB1APvE+U/7mhll4o2PfpLzZV7RNE8Sbd5kFFNE
	QxlgENfyssB+XveXjeJ91HJzT07jwGVz2Zqpn8P6d1zGLmNMRDUNPdgTEq9dIafIVCb
	Z+w=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=mail; d=resistor.net; c=simple; q=dns;
	b=DaZD0wE22NtF+PkuKugd6eIGfpQEmxyAEeAMFR6apM0Pn0I4SzrIjGBKgQPWKLRaW
	nTGhv1Vxr2SPYKgoEWCWcSrQ+UnHTxdEGPAYlPjda/GB/J+6XhE1lk+TCYkCme375n6
	Aw8xxUO6EHr9uAm5dTIHTe04Qz+soO71O8lnD4c=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20080619210742.02ae95c8 at resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 23:39:44 -0700
To: ietf at ietf.org, iesg at ietf.org
From: SM <sm at resistor.net>
Subject: Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft-klensin-rfc2821bis
In-Reply-To: <20080619175645.0CA443A68C2 at core3.amsl.com>
References: <8832006D4D21836CBE6DB469 at klensin-asus.vbn.inter-touch.net>
	<485590E2.3080107 at gmail.com>
	<p06250116c47c330c7dd0 at [75.145.176.242]>
	<4856DE3A.3090804 at gmail.com>
	<C122F91B-59B0-49AC-ABBC-6752217C4E47 at NOKIA.COM>
	<20080619024147.9146C3A6938 at core3.amsl.com>
	<485A353B.30403 at dcrocker.net>
	<20080619175645.0CA443A68C2 at core3.amsl.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: ietf at ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>,
	<mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf at ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>,
	<mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Sender: ietf-bounces at ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces at ietf.org

At 10:50 19-06-2008, Russ Housley wrote:
> That seems to be the crux of the appeal.  Does every possible thing
> upon which an AD can raise a DISCUSS position need to align with a
> written rule?  Don't we select leaders because we have some
> confidence in their judgement?

A process gets constrained if we have to go by written rules 
only.  However, without such rules one has to resort to second 
guessing to determine what the rules might be.  Written rules are a 
way to set the expectations and bring in openness and fairness into 
the process.  The decision-making process is hampered if the rules 
are too rigid.  That's why guiding principles are defined.

By selecting leaders, we are demonstrating confidence in them.  As in 
any process, disputes may arise.  Srise.  Sometimes, a person might not agree 
with a particular decision.  The person may ask the leaders to review 
their decision.

Appeals are there for a purpose.  It provides a recourse if the 
person is not satisfied with a judgement.  Some may view it as a 
process failure.  Others may read it as a motion of no confidence in 
the judgement of the leaders.  It is better to hear both sides of the 
argument instead of jumping to hasty conclusions.  Whether it is in a 
Working Group discussion, on a Last Call or anywhere throughout the 
process, there are bound to be differences of opinion.  Sometimes 
this entails challenging current dogma or some higher 
authority.  This is after all a battleground of ideas which are 
judged on their technical merits.

Regards,
-sm 

_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


ometimes, a person might not agree 
with a particular decision.  The person may ask the leaders to review 
their decision.

Appeals are there for a purpose.  It provides a recourse if the 
person is not satisfied with a judgement.  Some may view it as a 
process failure.  Others may read it as a motion of no confidence in 
the judgement of the leaders.  It is better to hear both sides of the 
argument instead of jumping to hasty conclusions.  Whether it is in a 
Working Group discussion, on a Last Call or anywhere throughout the 
process, there are bound to be differences of opinion.  Sometimes 
this entails challenging current dogma or some higher 
authority.  This is after all a battleground of ideas which are 
judged on their technical merits.

Regards,
-sm 

_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf