RE: PROTO Process

["David Harrington" <ietfdbh at comcast.net>]

Hi,

Maybe for the IESG, the writeups are the most important and useful
aspect. As an author and chair, I think the PROTO process is working
just fine.

As an author, I expect to deal directly with ADs and reviewers who
make comments or DISCUSSes. I think that works just fine most of the
time.

However, sometimes it does not work that well if the author thinks the
change should not be made, and a DISCUSS insists it must. Sometimes, a
WG totally overlooks some aspect, such as congestion control or
operational issues, and the IESG rightfully thinks the aspect should
be addressed. Sometimes the WG does not want to deal with delay that
would occur from addressing the issue. Sometimes addressing the aspect
can have significant effect on the protocol design. The shepherd can
help to determine whether WG pushback is to avoid doing the extra
work, or because there is a real technical reason for not doing the
change. The shepherd can help to ensure that the WG is kept in the
loop on the proposed changes, and not just the IESG and the authors.
As an editor, I like knowing the shepherd (and chairs) are there to
make sure all the parties have adequate opportunities for input to the
process. As a chair, I know it can be easy to be driven to get the
milestones completed. Having a shepherd (even if it is one of the
chairs) means that somebody has the explicit job of ensuring fairness
and transparency during the approval process. I appreciate that the
shpeherd is there for that.

IESG members typically get involved in the process very late, and do
not always understand what debates have already occurred in the WG and
were settled only by rough consensus. Those who "lost" the debate can
raise the same issues during IETF last call or IESG review to try once
again to force their viewpoint through. If the requested change is not
consistent with WG rough consensus, then the shepherd can serve as the
arbiter. The shepherd can lead the discussion to understand the
viewpoints and the history of the two sides, and to help educate the
IESG about the history of the issue. Of course the WG chairs also
serve that function, and the shepherd should certainly call upon the
chairs as needed. As an editor, I appreciate knowing that such
arbiters are available to help settle disputes that might arise
(again) during IESG reviews.

By the time many documents reach the IESG, the chairs and authors are
often tired of the document. They just want it done. And they can be
frustrated by delays late in the process. The shepherd helps to keep
driving the approval process forward, making sure it is clear what and
who are in the critical path - whose court is the ball in? What needs
to be done to keep things moving. I appreciate knowing that the
shepherd is doing this job. I do think this is most helpful when the
shepherd is not one of the WG chairs, so they can help to motivate the
chairs to get things done on a timely basis.

So, personally, as an author and chair, I think the PROTO process is
working effectively as designed. I think it may offer more visible
benefits to authors and chairs than to IESG members.

David Harrington
dbharrington at comcast.net
ietfdbh at comcast.net
dharrington at huawei.com


> -----Original Message-----
> From: wgchairs-bounces at ietf.org 
> [mailto:wgchairs-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jari Arkko
> Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 6:14 AM
> To: Russ Housley
> Cc: wgchairs at ietf.org
> Subject: Re: PROTO Process
> 
> I wanted to expand a little bit on what Russ was saying.
> 
> In my experience, the part of PROTO that is currently working is the

> write-ups. When it comes to the shepherding of the document through 
> issues raised in last call, directorate, and IESG reviews, 
> the authors 
> and the responsible/discussing ADs seem to be most active in 
> responding, 
> explaining, suggesting text changes, etc. There are notable 
> exceptions 
> -- you know who you are -- but in many cases the shepherds are 
> relatively silent. Is this a correct perception of the 
> reality? And if 
> it is, is it a desirable state of affairs or something that should
be 
> changed?
> 
> Jari
> 
>