what are the real problems
John C Klensin
john-ietf at jck.com
Fri May 23 16:53:41 CEST 2003
--On Friday, 23 May, 2003 11:25 -0700 Dave Crocker
<dhc at dcrocker.net> wrote:
> Competing efforts have a natural filter, called critical mass.
> If they can't develop a critical mass of serious effort, they
> die of their own accord. If they *can* develop competent
> effort, then it is essentially hubris for IETF management to
> arbitrarily choose between competing proposals.
Dave,
While I think I agree in general, I think we need to be a bit
careful here. It can sometimes be exceptionally difficult to
tell a mob from "critical mass" and even more difficult to
distinguish between a pack of wolves in full chase and "strong
consensus". Both mobs and wolf packs typically have some
organizing leadership, although often, when the leaders are good
at their work, the only clear symptom is that everyone is headed
in the same direction, or baying more or less in unison, rather
than running off in all directions at random.
If something dies from lack of critical mass, fine: we generally
should wish the effort well and speed it on its way to a happy
rest. I'm really pleased about the number of WGs the IESG has
succeeded in closing in the last several months --both the
"closed/sucessful" and "closed/wasn't doing much" ones-- I think
it is a great trend that should be applauded and continued. But
the combination of "they have critical mass" and "there is
competent effort" are wildly subjective and both are subject to
gaming. And what is, and is not, "arbitrary" is even worse: I
don't think any of us would argue for, or encourage, the "IETF
management" to make arbitrary choices between competing
proposals (or any other arbitrary choice unless a choice is
important and the particular choice really makes no difference).
But that doesn't imply that some work with WG consensus behind
it shouldn't be killed, or that choices should not be made on
the grounds that one is better for the Internet than the other,
and so on, even if the WG doesn't agree with the reasoning.
I'm not opposed to competing standards, although I'd hate to see
us make a habit of it (and, in most cases, would prefer
competing Experimental protocols with a clear plan about review
and real decision-making). I think that there are some
circumstances in which we really should say "nice try, but no
sale and no standard" to WGs -- again, I would be very upset if
it became a habit and extremely concerned if it emerges as a
"late surprise", but I think it is dangerous when the IESG
doesn't believe it has that power and, indeed, responsibility to
make those decisions when the WG has been getting, and
resisting, push-back for some time without any real effort to
engage in a dialogue on the issues the AD is raising.
We have both seen situations in which a relatively
well-organized, but very narrowly-focused, group comes to the
IETF wanting either ratification, or an umbrella organization
for, standards it wants to produce. These groups have critical
mass by any objective measure we could apply. What they often
lack is a strong sense of responsibility to and for the Internet
as a whole as distinct from their narrow efforts and focus.
Sometimes they can be educated, sometimes they can't. But they
routinely argue "critical mass" (often in the form of how many
people they can get to hum loudly at a BOF) as evidence for
their entitlement to have a WG. If they get such a WG, it often
requires superhuman efforts on the part of the relevant AD to
get and keep their work on-track with basic functionality and
interoperability goals on the public Internet, and the ADs are
often damned for those efforts when we, as a community, should
be thanking them.
The same situation applies late in the process: if there is a
controversial issue, and dollars are at stake, it is rarely
difficult for someone who is good at whipping up crowds to get a
number of folks to yell loudly in unison either for or against a
proposal or some push-back about it.
Ultimately, someone needs to make a judgment about whether a
particular size group, or a particular volume of comments
--favorable or unfavorable-- represent true "critical mass" or
"rough consensus", and whether the result is competent, or
whether they represent a possibly-well-organized effort to push
a special interest or insufficiently-thought-out protocol
through the IETF. Even from my perspective as someone who has
had more than the usual quota of disagreements with the IESG as
a whole and with how individual IESG members have handled
particular situations, I think our best hope is to let --and
expect-- the IESG to do its job in these areas. That means
avoiding getting into the kind of second-guessing in which "John
(or Dave) thinks there is critical mass" or "everyone who spoke
more than twice at the last plenary agreed" are presumed to take
precedence over IESG deliberation and decision-making.
Does "let the IESG do it" have a potential for abuse? Sure. Do
I, personally, think it has been abused occasionally? Yes. Do
I believe they have made the wrong decisions, or have been much
too slow to make a decision, sometimes? Yes, more certainly
than I think there has been intentional abuse in getting there.
But, for those issues, I think we need to concentrate on having
the basis on which decisions are made be much more public and
transparent. I think we also need to look at improving the
efficiency and effectiveness of the checks and balances
--including the appeals and recall procedures-- if we conclude
that they aren't usable enough. But I think that blanket
statements about criteria that, themselves, are subject to abuse
and require subjective interpretation just take us around in
circles.
> For all of the times we have efforts to create competing
> proposals, most die of their own lack of credible technical
> support. They do not need arbitrary management 'help'. For the
> few that are serious, we do not need to worry about the
> "drain" on IETF management.
In general, yes. But, perhaps because I seem to like worrying,
I don't want to do anything that would say to the IESG "even if
you think this is important and should be encouraged, if they
don't have critical mass on their own, you are not to go try to
nurture them or figure out ways to move the effort along". And
I do think it is important to examine, or help the IESG examine,
their workload so that, if something _is_ serious, the cycles
are available to deal with it without setting off crises about
how other things are getting delayed or "blocked".
regards,
john
More information about the Problem-statement
mailing list