USEFOR last call, point of order

Harald,

I expect a chair to be somewhat of a cheerleader and
have an interest in moving things forward.

But the chair should be impartial when complying with
release procedures.  Good executive decisions at the level
of the IESG can only be made based on accurate assessments,
and "spin" is not acceptable.

I think your submission to the IESG requesting last call
was biased.  Can you explain?

1. I disagree with the idea that it should be published in the event the
WG closes.  If a WG closes, it is because procedures were not
being followed.  Why is it reasonable to assume work products that
resulted from a flawed process should be accepted?  I would think an
explicit justification should be presented.

2. There have to be interoperating implementations before it can be 
standardized, and it should be clearer that there aren't even experimental 
implementations for some of it.  I am not sure that even bare requirements
for submitting for last call are met here.  That was not clear in your
submission.

3. I think the "nobody threatened to appeal" is a hope, not a statement
of the risk that someone appeals.  You never asked in the group.  Did you
ask anyone else?  Especially when so many good reviewers left the group?

Re: USEFOR last call, point of order

Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:
> Harald,
>
> I expect a chair to be somewhat of a cheerleader and
> have an interest in moving things forward.
>
> But the chair should be impartial when complying with
> release procedures.  Good executive decisions at the level
> of the IESG can only be made based on accurate assessments,
> and "spin" is not acceptable.
>
> I think your submission to the IESG requesting last call
> was biased.  Can you explain?
>
> 1. I disagree with the idea that it should be published in the event the
> WG closes.  If a WG closes, it is because procedures were not
> being followed.  Why is it reasonable to assume work products that
> resulted from a flawed process should be accepted?  I would think an
> explicit justification should be presented.
If the group is closed, the biggest contributing factor I see for making 
such a decision is lack of interest. Why do you assume that it has to be 
caused by lack of interest?
>
> 2. There have to be interoperating implementations before it can be 
> standardized, and it should be clearer that there aren't even 
> experimental implementations for some of it.  I am not sure that even 
> bare requirements
> for submitting for last call are met here.  That was not clear in your
> submission.

Re: USEFOR last call, point of order

Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:

> But the chair should be impartial when complying with
> release procedures. Good executive decisions at the
> level of the IESG can only be made based on accurate
> assessments, and "spin" is not acceptable.

Just for the record: I'm with Forrest.

Too many contributors have left the WG; nonetheless, the
number of reported inconsistencies in the draft remains
constant. This "last call" looks more like the chair being
tired of the lack of progress (and the draft _is_ far from
acceptable), but not feeling like shutting down the WG as
announced originally as part of the milestone schedule.

Re: USEFOR last call, point of order

> I expect a chair to be somewhat of a cheerleader and
> have an interest in moving things forward.

> But the chair should be impartial when complying with
> release procedures.  Good executive decisions at the level
> of the IESG can only be made based on accurate assessments,
> and "spin" is not acceptable.

> I think your submission to the IESG requesting last call
> was biased.  Can you explain?

I would suggest you familiarize yourself with IETF processes a bit more before
making comments of this sort. Just as one point, the last call process is
started by the relevant area director (in this case Lisa Dusseault), not by the
WG chair. The fact that the process has begun means the relevant area director
is comfortable that the necessary procedures have been followed.

This doesn't mean the document is ready to become an RFC. That's what the last
call is for: To determine whether or not it is ready.

> 1. I disagree with the idea that it should be published in the event the
> WG closes.  If a WG closes, it is because procedures were not
> being followed.

I'm actually having a hard time coming up with a case where a WG was shut down
due to procedures not being followed. Since the chair is responsible for
procedural issues the usual remedy in such cases is to replace the chair.

The usual reason for shutting down WGs is when they are completely out in the

Re: USEFOR last call, point of order

Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:

>I think your submission to the IESG requesting last call
>was biased.  Can you explain?

I felt the same when I read it. It is interesting to see in writing that 
nobody who dished personal insults my way got censured, despite my being 
told otherwise while it was happening.

Harald Alvestrand <harald <at> xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>If the group is closed, the biggest contributing factor I see for making 
>such a decision is lack of interest. Why do you assume that it has to be 
>caused by lack of interest?

You are the one assuming a lack of interest. People do not always leave 
this group because they lack interest in the outcome. I'd say that one 
very good reason is when they've seen a draft that they've worked very 
hard to get to say one thing go away because the editor decided he didn't 
like what it said.

>Nobody's threatened to appeal in any message I've seen on the list.

I recall having seen several such messages appear in the list in the past. 
I don't recall whether I said it explicitely myself, but I know I made my 
position clear about the process of discussing changes outside the list on 
a web system that cannot be accessed by anyone who refuses to accept bogus 
SSL certs.

Re: USEFOR last call, point of order

I really appreciate your detailed response.

> My suggestion, however, is that the better course of action given that the last
> call has begun is to comment on technical issues in the document itself rather
> than the process that has gotten us to this point.

1. It is my opinion that most of the technical issues in USEFOR are going to 
remain hidden until the discussions start on USEPRO, and implementations start
to be written.  Raising a significant formal objection now is going to be pretty 
difficult, since USEFOR is a document format, not a protocol. Risk of harm only 
arises through activity, not format specifications alone.

2. If this were the last and final WG document out the door, rather than the 
simplest and least contentious of 3 proposed documents, then I would agree that 
process discussions would be pointless: everything would be done. But we have 
90% of the work left to do.

3. It seems that missing a milestone by a year or many years is not rare in WGs.
But missing this prediction by a year, something like 5 times as many months as 
Harald first predicted, and then predicting that the next and more complicated 
work product will be complete in a year using the same process does not inspire 
confidence and trust.

4. It seems process is not a grounds for appeal, and a discussion about process 
is off-topic. If everyone thinks this WG is working well, then carry on.  The 
rest of the software development world has discovered that process explains results.

Thank you again, Ned and Harald, for replying.

Re: USEFOR last call, point of order

Forrest J Cavalier <mibsoft <at> mibsoftware.com> writes:

> 4. It seems process is not a grounds for appeal, and a discussion about
> process is off-topic. If everyone thinks this WG is working well, then
> carry on.  The rest of the software development world has discovered
> that process explains results.

I don't think the WG is working well.  I do, however, think that the
current USEFOR draft is superior to RFC 1036 as guidance for implementors
on Usenet today, and I think it's silly to have a superior document be
left in semi-permanent limbo the way that Son-of was.  So when weighing
the decision of whether to publish or not publish USEFOR, separate from
the questions of whether or not we're likely to accomplish all of our
goals, it seems to me that it's better for the general community to
publish it.

As for continued work, well, I'm willing to keep working provided that
people are still reviewing and we seem to be converging on something
useful.  I think we mostly did that with USEFOR.  Whether we can do that
with USEPRO is very iffy, but we haven't really tried yet, and I don't
want to give up without even trying.

It's worth pointing out that the NNTP working group also went on for many
years past its deadlines and only finally made progress when the WG was
down to about five active members, and yet I'm extremely pleased with the
documents we produced and which are about to become RFCs.

--

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra <at> stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Re: USEFOR last call, point of order

Re: USEFOR last call, point of order

In <4521DC94.9020705 <at> mibsoftware.com> "Forrest J. Cavalier III" <mibsoft <at> mibsoftware.com> writes:

>I really appreciate your detailed response.

>> My suggestion, however, is that the better course of action given that the last
>> call has begun is to comment on technical issues in the document itself rather
>> than the process that has gotten us to this point.

>1. It is my opinion that most of the technical issues in USEFOR are going to 
>remain hidden until the discussions start on USEPRO, and implementations start
>to be written.  Raising a significant formal objection now is going to be pretty 
>difficult, since USEFOR is a document format, not a protocol. Risk of harm only 
>arises through activity, not format specifications alone.

Then your proper course of action is to recommend to the IESG that they
decline to publish it until they see USEPRO (that is also my own view, but
I accept that the consensus was against me).

But you have given no cogent reason for absolute rejection of the
document.

--

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl <at> clerew.man.ac.uk      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5

Re: USEFOR last call, point of order

Charles Lindsey wrote:
> In <4521DC94.9020705 <at> mibsoftware.com> "Forrest J. Cavalier III" <mibsoft <at> mibsoftware.com> writes:
> 
> 
>>I really appreciate your detailed response.
> 
> 
>>>My suggestion, however, is that the better course of action given that the last
>>>call has begun is to comment on technical issues in the document itself rather
>>>than the process that has gotten us to this point.
> 
> 
>>1. It is my opinion that most of the technical issues in USEFOR are going to 
>>remain hidden until the discussions start on USEPRO, and implementations start
>>to be written.  Raising a significant formal objection now is going to be pretty 
>>difficult, since USEFOR is a document format, not a protocol. Risk of harm only 
>>arises through activity, not format specifications alone.
> 
> 
> Then your proper course of action is to recommend to the IESG that they
> decline to publish it until they see USEPRO (that is also my own view, but
> I accept that the consensus was against me).
> 
> But you have given no cogent reason for absolute rejection of the
> document.
> 

It was the third way I was searching for.  Discuss the process.  Discuss how 
USEFOR came to be submitted for last call, and if that was proper.  Discuss how 
soon the clean up to USEFOR (that USEPRO will cause) will happen.

I agree that "Perfect draft" is unreasonable.  But there is a continuum of
imperfection. We have a disagreement in the WG about how ready the document is.
That disagreement was NOT apparent or highlighted by the submission from Alexey.

The IESG gives no more weight to the USEPRO editor's view than others, which
is weird, considering how USEFOR came to be a piece split off from a larger
work, and the significant interdependencies between them.  If USEFOR were a 
strict documentation of existing practice, my opinion would be different.

So, Charles is correct that I have given no reason for absolute rejection of the 
document.  I don't think it should be absolutely rejected.  I agree it is an 
improvement over those parts of previous standards.  And that is what the IESG 
is looking for: some improvement.  That's a pretty low bar.  If "minimal 
improvement over 1036" was the bar of acceptance, then we could have submitted 
long, long, long ago. We could have used Son-Of-1036. But that was NOT the charter.

If that is the bar, then no Format standard that proposes new features can be 
appealed.  Is that what the IESG rules intend?  If one were to try to appeal to 
the IESG to reject USEFOR now, most likely it would be based on something that 
USEPRO draft says now.  (As I said, activities create risk, not mere format 
specifications.)  But an appeal on that basis would be dismissed by saying 
"Well, USEPRO is just a draft, we can fix it in USEPRO."  Saying that it is 
fixable in USEPRO is pure hubris, (some format flaws cannot be overcome by 
protocol.) Saying that USEPRO will be fixed in any particular time frame is not 
supported by the track record of this WG.

Isn't there a third way?  Apparently not.

I predict the end result of all this will be is a confusing set of conflicting 
or incomplete standards issued from a single WG, and no one left interested in 
cleaning it up.  The people who can act to prevent that are the chair and the AD.