[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: PROTO Process
The issues raised by David are exactly the added value that I would
expect from the PROTO shepherds (WG chairs or not) beyond the write-up.
The issue is that this happens so rarely. The question is why.
Dan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: iesg-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:iesg-bounces at ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of David Harrington
> Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 3:43 PM
> To: 'Jari Arkko'; 'Russ Housley'
> Cc: wgchairs at ietf.org
> Subject: RE: PROTO Process
>
> 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
> >
> >
>
>