Staying on Track (Re: Documenting pilots (RE: pausable explanation for the Document Series))

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand]

--On lørdag, juni 07, 2003 10:01:34 -0400 John C Klensin 
<john-ietf at jck.com> wrote:

> As I hope my recent notes make clear, I'm not in favor of trying to
> invent procedures to alleviate any of the above, or of delaying things
> until such procedures reach some extraordinary consensus.  But I'd be
> much happier about the idea --even as an experiment-- had the IESG been
> willing to stand up and say "fascinating idea, lets try it".

Full disclosure: I said "fascinating idea, let's try it". Or the semantic 
equivalent thereof.
I thought at the time, and still think, that the IESG doesn't have to give 
blessing to this experiment - so I spoke only as myself.

> And it
> would have been even better, at least from an "experimental" context, had
> the IESG chosen to say "It would be good to really do this as an
> experiment and therefore to be able to make some comparisons. So let's
> look at the following mix of areas, or specific groups of WGs, first,
> leave the others with status quo, and see how things work out.

Given the variability between areas that Eric Rescorla's numbers showed up, 
and the variability between groups, I think this is difficult to do.
I'd be very interested in seeing someone propose metrics to measure whether 
or not the experiment succeeded.
But I don't really see why the IESG should be the one doing that.

> I'm disappointed that type of response from the IESG hasn't happened.
> Maybe they don't think they have been asked.   And the latter is, of
> course, what my recent notes have been about: if we need a formal
> document and request to publish it as an RFC and/or a formal WG call for
> consensus and response, in order to get an IESG response to a "we think
> this would be worth trying, do you have reactions or
> suggestions/requirements about how to try it", then, IMO, we are in deep
> trouble.    But, going ahead with something on the grounds that it is an
> experiment, without objective evaluation criteria or any real possibility
> of them, and without IESG comment, input, or participation...  That seems
> to me to be an opportunity for some future demagogue, with some other
> experiment, to try something, claim it succeeded, and then insist
> --loudly and by whispering campaign-- it was a success and that IESG
> failure to immediately adopt it indicates that all of those rascals
> should be thrown out and the procedural structure blown up (and replaced
> with one of the demagogue's liking) to mark their way.

Point.

*Someone* needs to do quality control and measurement on experiments.
But .... the IESG has other jobs. Our standard-and-often-recommended 
practice when asked to do something is to figure out who to ask to do it.

Who should be asked in this case, and who should do the asking?

                  Harald