USEFOR: Current situation and next steps

[ned.freed@mrochek.com]

Since there has been some confusion about it let's start by dealing with the
question of who responsible area director is for this group. As many of your
probably know, I've been listed as the AD in charge on the working group web
page for a long time but of late Patrik Falstrom has been the one who has
performed this function. However, Patrik and I have discussed this and agreed
that it is more appropriate for me to perform this function going forward.

So, acting as the AD charge, I have reviewed the USEFOR situation in some
detail. And what I see is a working group in extremely serious trouble:

(0) The chair of the group has resigned.

(1) The USEFOR charter lists no goals or miletones whatsoever.

(2) According to the WG web page USEFOR has produced no RFCs despite years of
    work.

(3) Consensus on the current USEFOR draft was apparently declared on a 9 to 8
    straw poll result.

(4) Despite having numerous contentious issues to deal with USEFOR has not had
    a face to face meeting at any recent IETF. (The latest previous meeting I
    can find a record of was IETF 42 back in 1998.)

(5) The current document author has stated publicly that the approach USEFOR
    is taking is to reach internal consensus first and only then address
    concerns expressed by the broader IETF community.

In regards to each of these problems:

(0) IETF working groups have to have chairs approved by the IESG. A group for
    which a chair cannot be found will have to be shut down.

(1) A charter that lists no goals or milestones may have been acceptable back
    when USEFOR was first created but is unacceptable now. A charter update is
    required to address this.

(2) The long period of time USEFOR has been operating without producing
    tangible results argues strongly for a reduction in scope to deal with
    only the subset of issues which the working can reach consensus on.

(3) A 9 to 8 poll result in favor of the present draft does not constitute
    consensus of any sort.

(4) Face to face meetings are known to be a useful tool in resolving
    contentious issues. USEFOR needs to consider having such a meeting.

(5) A strategy that seeks first to satisfy the working group and only then
    considers the concerns of the broader community has been shown over and
    over and over again to be a recipe for disaster in the IETF. The
    concerns of the broader community MUST be factored in during the
    working group process. If need be the charter can be updated to clearly
    specify how these concerns must be satisfied.

It is clear to me that a new chair has to be found and the current charter has
to be revised before USEFOR can proceed. Finding a new chair is my job and I am
currently working on it.

I would also like to suggest that perhaps the best thing to do is to simply
place the entire issue of message header internationalization out of scope for
the time being. I don't particularly like this approach, but weeks of debate
have made it abundantly clear that no consensus exists in support of any one
approach. I think we need to close on the parts of USEFOR that can be agreed on
and get it out the door. Once that is done we can return to the header
internationalization issue. This temporal division of tasks has been used
many times in the IETF and has frequently been enormously effective.

Let me close with a word of warning. I will have little choice but to shut down
this group if it turns out a new chair cannot be found or a charter revision
that addresses these concerns cannot be produced. I really don't want this to
happen: The work this group is doing is important and it really needs to
succeed. But do not confuse my extreme reluctance to shut down this group with
the inability to do so. Indeed, one doesn't have to look back very far to find
examples of other applications area groups that were shut down by the area
director. Let's all please try to work together to avoid this happening to
USEFOR.

				Ned Freed