Re: [idn] Future of the requirements document

[Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>]

At 05:57 AM 12/12/2001 -0500, Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine wrote:
> > The decision to drop requirements is explained in the wg chairs
> > statement and is independent of your appeal.
>Chairs do not decide, they attempt to observe and correctly state the
>rough consensus of a working group.

Eric, he said an *explanation* was in the wg chair statement, not that the 
decision was simply or purely a wg chair decision.

In fact there was significant discussion in the wg meeting in 
SLC.  (Personally, I would have rather spent the time on actual technical 
advancement discussions, but there is equally a good argument for touching 
all the bases that needed to be pruned and solidified, including this one.)

It is quite common -- and acceptable -- for IETF meeting discussion and 
rough consensus to be used as establishing a prima facie basis for a 
decision.  That is, rather than needing to do an open-ended query of the 
mailing list, IETF meeting consensus is often taken as the de facto 
decision, only pending extensive objection on the list. If there is no 
extensive objection, the decision stands.

Working Group chairs are charged with making forward progress.  Asserting a 
positive decision, and waiting for objections, is just as valid as 
asserting a multi-valued choice and asking everyone to express favor for 
one value or another.  The former is more efficient, albeit riskier.  It 
therefore needs to be used selectively.  In my opinion, its use here is 
entirely appropriate.


> > But your (and David) volunteer to take over as editor of requirements is
> > also noted. Nevertheless, the value of requirements is lesser now and it
> > is agreed in Salt Lake to drop the requirements. (Minutes will be
> > available soon).
>
>Face to face meetings do not decide, they reach (or don't) some consensus,
>which the working group may (or may not) affirm, again, by rough consensus.

To the extent that there is a mail-swell -- the Internet version of a 
ground-swell -- of list support for your concerns, that will of course be 
significant and probably decisive.  To the extent that this thread 
continues to be a concern expressed by only one or two participants, this 
will demonstrate a de facto list *concurrence* with the meeting consensus.

For everyone:  the line of discussion about use of private comments is a 
complete and immediate rathole.  It needs to be dropped unless and until 
there is a strong basis for claiming that rough consensus is not 
visible.  So far, there is no such ambiguity.  Instead, there is extended 
theoretical debate about a theoretical problem.  Not a constructive path, 
folks.

As to the matter of whether IDN process is sufficiently open, I'll note 
that I think it has, if anything been TOO open.  And, no, I do not really 
mean that.  What I mean is that it has spent too much time constantly 
taking in everyone's comments and not enough time making forward progress.

This working group is pursuing a technically very difficult and socially 
very sensitive topic.  Hence it is essential that there be even more 
listening and discussing than is typical for IETF groups.  We usually do 
quite a bit.  Here, we have needed to do even more.  Still, there comes a 
time to stop listening and start deciding.

A wg chair's task is particularly difficult because they must balance 
between taking that input and moving the wg forward.  Too much of either 
one defeats success.  In my view -- even given the requirement that the IDN 
wg do more listening than usual -- we have done too much of it, and not 
enough deciding.

And just to underscore how extreme the disparity of perceptions between 
Eric B-W and myself I will comment that I was considering filing an appeal 
about IN-action!  (The Monday IDN meeting eliminated that consideration; I 
am mentioning it just to underscore a very different perspective on the wg.)

The wg chairs have now started forcing progress.  As to whether it is 
premature, I will simply state that I think it is one year overdue.  Again, 
I mention this not to complain but to demonstrate an alternate perspective.

A test of whether it is being done "correctly" is to consider the tone of 
the group in a face-to-face meeting.  In my opinion, the tone in SLC was 
fine.  Not without people making objections, of course, but overall it was 
comfortable and relatively efficient.  Both are excellent indicators of 
acceptable process.

d/

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