Document Blocking (Was: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-problem-process-00.txt)

[Thomas Narten]

Pete Resnick <presnick at qualcomm.com> writes:

> On 5/16/03 at 2:49 PM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> >  >          5. Modify IESG-internal processes to make it impossible for one
> >>              or two IESG members to block a document.
> >
> >There is a strong implication here that ADs might do this for 
> >spurious reasons.

> I don't think it makes a difference to the issue, but let's even 
> assume that it is *not* done for spurious reasons.

I have to say something here, as this issue keeps being brought
up. Reading this list, one could easily get the idea that the ADs love
to block documents, usually don't have a good reason for doing so (and
thus fall back to procedural tricks), and that the ADs actually are
hostile towards each others with tit-for-tat happening if one AD
blocks a document belonging to someone else.

That is not the IESG I know or that I would want to be a part of.

It is my assumption and belief that when an AD puts in a discuss,
other ADs _do_ support that. [Note: this is a topic I will bring up
explicitely within the IESG, in case I'm totally clueless about how
others really feel here.] When this isn't the case, the shepherding AD
will object, argue the issue isn't worth pushing back on, or provide
other context for why raising the issue doesn't make sense. Then there
is discussion and give and take. Sometimes the objecting AD will
withdraw their discuss, sometimes not. In fact, it is quite common for
other ADs to agree, but to explicitely NOT put in a formal discuss,
trusting the one AD to deal with the issue satisfactoraly and not
wanting to add more process overhead (i.e., another AD that must clear
their discuss). One of the common "votes" that happens during the
telechats is "no further objection" which formally means "no
objection" but in practice means "I agree with others, but don't have
more to add and don't need to be in the process loop to see that the
document gets fixed".

Forcing the IESG to have "consensus" or "unanimity" (those words have
been used on this thread) on all discusses procedurally seems like a
high overhead approach for dealing with a particular problem.

I'd actually like to better understand how much of a REAL problem it
is that individual ADs are impropropely blocking documents with the
"single AD veto". There are many comments that imply it happens "all
the time" and that "everyone has examples". But I wonder sometimes if
we are all thinking of the same document from 3 years ago. We can't
fix what happened 3 years ago, but we can fix things that are broken
_today_.

> >But if one or both Security ADs are deeply convinced that a draft 
> >constitutes a major security risk, or one or both Routing ADs are 
> >convinced that a draft will lead to routing loops, isn't it quite 
> >appropriate for them to block the document?

> Absolutely not, but *not* because the document shouldn't be stopped. 
> The ADs who think that there is a serious problem with a document 
> should convince the rest of the IESG that the document is a bad
> idea.

This in effect is happening AFAIK. The IESG does support the security
ADs when this happens.

> Then, the IESG can come to consensus (or unanimity) to reject a 
> document (or at least stop it until the problem is fixed).

I think it would be inefficient at best to force this level of process
onto discusses.

> The problem with the current process (as I understand it) is that it 
> allows documents to be blocked by one or two IESG members without the 
> consensus of the group.

In theory, yes. But in practice? It would be instructive for the IESG
to ask itself where this has happened, and I will bring up the
topic. My sense is very rarely, but I could be wrong.

But at least some on the community assume this happens often enough
that we need more procedure to prevent it from happening. Concrete
examples would be useful to provide context.

> The current procedure assumes that one or two IESG members must be
> able to block a document because the rest of the IESG is so stupid
> or ignorant that they cannot be convinced that the document is a bad
> idea, even if one or two experts on the IESG know that it is.

That is one way to look at it, but it would be inconsistent with my
understanding of things. The way I see it is is that when someone
raises an issue, and the IESG supports the objection, a one-person
discuss is the staightforward way to deal with the problem. Should
responses to every discuss get reviewed by the entire IESG? There is a
scaling issue here...

> If that were actually the case, it points to a much worse state of
> affairs, where IESG members don't trust each other to do the right
> thing.

This is not the case, from what I know.

Note: This note might come across as sounding like I don't think there
are any problems that need fixing. There are. But I am unconvinced
that the "one AD veto" is one of the real problems. Given that at
least some in the community appear to think it is a problem, I'd
really appreciate some concrete examples. My suspicion is that if we
look at specifics, the reality may be quite a bit different than the
appearance.

Thomas