Re: [yam] Request for comments: Working Group procedure

[Dave CROCKER <dhc at dcrocker.net>]

Barry Leiba wrote:
> I think it's reasonable that we might get to a point in reviewing and
> adding/updating security considerations, where we think it's time to
> kick the document off. 


I'm going to pursue this for one last iteration, because I'm not sure that the 
underlying principle I'm trying to express is sufficiently clear.

It's entirely possible that I'm being too sensitive.  It's entirely possible 
that the discussion here is too theoretical.  It's entirely possible that the 
dribble of data from the IESG is merely meant as exploration. But I think it's 
worth belaboring the premise of the wg, to make sure that we do not fall into a 
trap of acting like normal wgs seeking Proposed.  That is, I think the crucial 
issue is going to be how /we/ choose to handle the interaction with the IESG.

What troubles me particularly is phrasing like "get to a point in reviewing and 
adding/updating".  This suggests the usual model that working groups have, in 
interacting with the IESG, which is a highly opportunistic and iterative 
exchange, trying to placate AD concerns.  In contrast, interaction based on 
clear principles with consistent application requires a very different style.

My understanding of this wg is that we are trying to establish some principles 
for processing from Draft to Full, and I do not think that goal is served by our 
having a sequence of on-going iterations of details with the IESG.  Just to be 
clear:  It's not that interacting with the IESG is bad; it's iterating during 
each interaction where we are driven by one set of details, then another, then...

When an AD presses for the wg to do more work on one of our drafts, I think we 
have to first be clear on whether the change is appropriate for this stage and 
we have to resist making the change if we believe it is not.

We especially need to avoid iterative negotiation, because it is expensive, slow 
frustrating and, I believe, typically destructive to the real quality of the 
work.  Tolerating such process when going to Proposed seems to be a necessary 
expedient, but I do not understand how it could be appropriate for a 
specification that is sufficiently mature to be worthy of Full.

This is supposed to be a learning and training exercise, and that means some of 
the adaptation needs to be with the IESG.  If ADs can deal with this wg effort 
the same as for ones seeking Proposed, they will not see the inherent difference 
in the work.

d/
--

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net