Re: [idn] idn wg proposed agenda

[Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>]

This note is about working group progress.  It is not about anyone's 
motivations or, for that matter, anyone's previous actions.

As an aside, I'll note that the IETF is frankly designed pretty well to 
literally ignore individual motivations.  Our transparency and process 
checks are quite good.

If someone tries to be manipulative for their own benefit, they can only 
succeed if the rest of us let them.  At that point, the fact that the 
individual was working in their self interest is no longer 
relevant.  Because the rest of us agreed.

To be explicit:  I am, quite pointedly, not stating or implying anything 
about motivations of any IDN participant.  Motives simply do not matter.

Only working group actions matter.


At 09:18 AM 12/5/2001 -0800, Rick H Wesson wrote:
>I didn't attend London, but I'm tired of attending nearly useless IDN
>meetings. Having time allotted to little review sessions of drafts that
>have little or no support is a real waste of everyones time.


Let's be clear about appropriate use of the very short time available for 
face to face IETF meetings:

         IETF MEETINGS ARE NOT FOR TECHNICAL REVIEW.  IETF MEETINGS
         ARE NOT FOR TEACHING.

         IETF MEETINGS ARE FOR RESOLVING OUTSTANDING DESIGN ISSUES
         AND SPECIFICATION DETAILS.

It is fine for people to attend meetings when they have not read the 
draft.  However it is not acceptable to spend such incredibly scarce time 
for educating them.

One more time:

         IETF MEETINGS ARE FOR RESOLVING ISSUES SO THAT
         SPECIFICATIONS ARE ABLE TO ADVANCE.


At 01:34 PM 12/6/2001 +0800, James Seng/Personal wrote:
>Market pressure is only one of aspect the aspect the group have to
>consider. It may be significant to you but not be so to others.

It is significant to the IETF.

Attendees who do not care about market pressure are free to indulge in 
research debates in a research environment.  Not the IETF.


>The job of the chairs is to gather rough consensus and move them
>forward.

Forgive me, James, but you listed two requirements.  Forward progress IS 
required.

And you correctly included the word "rough".

Rough consensus is not the same as unanimous consensus.

It does not permit a small minority to hold veto power over the rest of the 
group.


>  And the advises Marc and myself got is to "take as long as it
>takes to get rough consensus but not one day more".

Alas, my own assessment is that IDN has already taken a significant number 
of MONTHS more.

d/


----------
Dave Crocker  <mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking  <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253;  fax +1.408.273.6464