[Bloat] "Very interesting L4S presentation from Nokia Bell Labs on tap for RIPE 88 in Krakow this week! "

[Sebastian Moeller]

Hi Jason,

> On 22. May 2024, at 14:48, Livingood, Jason <jason_livingood at comcast.com> wrote:
> 
> > in the IETF the gap between the 'no politics' motto  There have always been politics at the IETF and in every other SDO, open source project, etc. – it is human nature IMO.

[SM] I agree, but most other organisations openly accept that, it is only the IETF that claims to abhor politics. The IETF however publishes https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7282 arguing against exactly the kind of horse-trading happening out in the open. The solution is IMHO not to try to enforce rfc7282 but to accept that politics is unavoidale and implement processes that takr that into account. As is the IETF rules allow chairs and ADs tremendous leeway without recourse or checks and balances.
BUT, I do admit that even with my limited experience with the IETF I have also seen WGs were the IETF process works really well, civil and productive, so not all is bad, but IMHO TSVWG demonstrates how easily that can derail or be derailed on purpose. Like when for a humming event (cough, ECT(1) input or output, cough) dozens of members appear that seem to never before or after have given any attributable input on a draft...


>  > And the fact that WG members see no harm in having private only strategy discussions with chairs and ADs.
>  In my personal experience at the IETF, when you are lead author or editor of a working group document it is routine to strategize with WG chairs and even ADs on how to keep the document moving forward, how to resolve conflict and achieve consensus, and how to be well-prepared for meetings. That IMO is a sign of WG chairs and ADs doing their job of developing standards on a timely basis.

[SM] Chairs and ADs function as arbiters in the process (whether they like it or not) and I like my arbiters neutral and unbiased. What would be the harm to have the discussion how to keep a document moving forward open on the mailing list? Doing it in secret is IMHO not a good optic (even if, what I assume and hope nothing untowardly happens).
My understanding is that "timely basis" is a far too important factor in recent years, I prefer no RFC over sup-standard RFCs. 



Regards
	Sebastian


>   JL