Problem: Resolution mechanisms for when working group consensus and IETF consensus or principles are not the same (was Re: what are the real problems)

[John C Klensin]

--On Friday, 23 May, 2003 19:48 -0400 Keith Moore 
<moore at cs.utk.edu> wrote:

>> But I want to give
>> an extended, if made-up (or at least deliberately disguised)
>> example, of that other part.  I think it represents one of
>> our  key problems, and one that generates many opportunities
>> for  heaping abuse on IESG for doing things we _want_ them to
>> do.
>
> yup.  seen it happen several times.  and on a significant
> subset of those occasions we made the mistake of giving them a
> WG (in the hope that they'd somehow get a clue along the way)
> and then regretting it later.  and in at least one case such a
> WG has demanded a PS even though it failed to meet technical
> concerns that were repeatedly raised at  multiple (as in
> three, IIRC) BOFs before the WG was ever formed.
>
> it's things like this that occasionally make me wish that we
> had public executions of WGs as part of the Thursday night
> plenary.

I don't know that I've mentioned it on this list (probably 
haven't, and it intrudes into the "solution" space a bit 
anyway), but I've had periodic thoughts that it would be a good 
idea to have ADs "invite" particularly interesting and/or 
problematic WGs to present their problem definition, work in 
progress, ideas, and plans at a plenary, and then take 
questions, etc.  This would act as a way to bring the whole 
community in on questions of relevance and relationship to the 
overall architecture and operation of the Internet.  Both the 
audience and the WG participants might learn a lot.  And while 
"contemplate process changes", "whine at the IESG" and "whine at 
the IAB" have an important place, injecting some community-wide 
_technical_ review and discussion back into the environment 
might be really helpful and interesting.

I would hope the process would rarely resemble a public 
execution, or even a public flogging.  But, in the rare cases 
where that is appropriate and necessary, it might not be a bad 
outcome. :-)

      john