-*- outline -*- * Proliferation of smaller, lighterweight "standards" organizations ** microformats.org ** wsgi.org ** WHAT WG ** the OpenID folk ** etc. * Growing pains / disputes / etc. * IETF’s process as modern, Internet-aware parliamentary procedure ** much simpler / more lightweight, because of technology *** design patterns as sign of programming language deficiencies ** Templatizing of IETF process for other organizations *** WHATWG as example? *** JSF as example EOC: basically, I’m going to try to argue that the IETF’s process is basically the modern version of parliamentary procedure, which takes into account geographical separation and open membership PSA: I like the general direction of your argument … PSA: one of the interesting things is the requirement for rough consensus *and* running code PSA: the IETF has gotten away from that somewhat EOC: *nod* PSA: but introduces a modern kind of check and balance EOC: yes EOC: spurious objections from non-implementors can be easily dismissed PSA: it’s funny how the necessary that something compile and run as defined will focus the mind PSA: s/necessary/necessity/ EOC: again, similar to some of the methods for dismissing motions in RR … PSA: they don’t take votes, but they do take "hums" EOC: *nod* EOC: and then have to take anything ‘decided’ to the ML PSA: if there is an issue of contention, the WG chair calls for a hum on it -- he (or she) carefully constructs a proposition and then asks for those in favor to hum PSA: the key is in carefully constructing the proposition PSA: and then they ask those opposed to hum PSA: it’s quite effective EOC: "and then they ask those opposed to hum" EOC: that’s exactly like the parliamentary rule that the negative vote is always taken PSA: ah yes EOC: even if it seems like the positive vote was overwhelming … EOC: *nod* EOC: One of my goals here is to encourage the ‘templatization’ of the IETF process for other organizations to conduct their business over the network & accept open membership EOC: One example might be Wikipedia EOC: just like blackstone … PSA: well, the JSF works much like the IETF, except we’re closer to our "rough consensus and running code" roots because we’re a more specialized community EOC: right EOC: and you have stricter membership, right? PSA: well, no, the membership is really just for legal purposes -- the discussion lists (especially the main standardization list) are all open to anyone EOC: *nod* PSA: we are slightly less fictional than the IETF organizationally EOC: ok, that’s interesting. the IETF ducks that by having no legal existence EOC: right PSA: yeah PSA: we have a legal existence, but it’s just to provide some underlying structure, which doesn’t affect our standardization work at all … PSA: the IETF also has layers -- there are WG members, spec authors, WG chairs who shepherd specs through the process, Area Directors, and then the IESG (which is made up of the ADs) PSA: so there are slightly different processes involved here and there PSA: e.g., the IESG votes EOC: right PSA: kind of like in the JSF we have the Council, 5 people who vote on whether to advance specs through the process PSA: and the Council is elected by the membership of the JSF PSA: which is really all the JSF membership is there for PSA: it’s a bootstrapping mechanism PSA: in the IETF they have this cumbersome thing called the NomCom (nominating committee) to get around the fact that they have no legal standing PSA: i.e., no official membership … EOC: Right, I want to convey in the essay that there are constraints that operate on a deliberative group; the tighter the constraints, the more like traditional RR you get. The looser, the more like IETF WGs EOC: e.g., fixed size v. open membership EOC: geographically constrained v. distributed EOC: etc. PSA: yes, there’s a continuum here which all use the same meta-rules as you call them EOC: right EOC: and those meta-rules emerged over time in precedent PSA: so it seems EOC: I mean, Robert even straight up calls it "the common parliamentary law", not the more modern-sounding "parliamentary procedure" PSA: ah, interesting EOC: One thing I want to do is to look at the mailing list archives from when the process-defining RFCs were revised * IETF process ** seemingly similar to common parliamentary law ** but much more lightweight ** Open membership RFC 2028, Section 3.2: For all purposes relevant to the Internet Standards development process, membership in the IETF and its Working Groups is defined to be established solely and entirely by individual participation in IETF and Working Group activities. Participation in the IETF and its Working Groups is by individual technical contributors rather than by formal representatives of organizations. RFC 2418, Section 1: There is no formal membership in the IETF. Participation is open to all. This participation may be by on-line contribution, attendance at face-to-face sessions, or both. Anyone from the Internet community who has the time and interest is urged to participate in IETF meetings and any of its on-line working group discussions. Participation is by individual technical contributors, rather than by formal representatives of organizations. working groups as ad-hoc committees RFC 2418, Section 1: Working groups tend to have a narrow focus and a lifetime bounded by the completion of a specific set of tasks, although there are exceptions. RFC 2418, Section 2: IETF working groups (WGs) are the primary mechanism for development of IETF specifications and guidelines, many of which are intended to be standards or recommendations. A working group may be established at the initiative of an Area Director or it may be initiated by an individual or group of individuals. Anyone interested in creating an IETF working group MUST obtain the advice and consent of the IETF Area Director(s) in whose area the working group would fall and MUST proceed through the formal steps detailed in this section. Working groups are typically created to address a specific problem or to produce one or more specific deliverables (a guideline, standards specification, etc.). Working groups are generally expected to be short-lived in nature. Upon completion of its goals and achievement of its objectives, the working group is terminated. A working group may also be terminated for other reasons (see section 4). Alternatively, with the concurrence of the IESG, Area Director, the WG Chair, and the WG participants, the objectives or assignment of the working group may be extended by modifying the working group’s charter through a rechartering process (see section 5). Criteria for WG formation RFC 2418, Section 2.1: When determining whether it is appropriate to create a working group, the Area Director(s) and the IESG will consider several issues: Are the issues that the working group plans to address clear and relevant to the Internet community? Are the goals specific and reasonably achievable, and achievable within a reasonable time frame? What are the risks and urgency of the work, to determine the level of effort required? Do the working group’s activities overlap with those of another working group? If so, it may still be appropriate to create the working group, but this question must be considered carefully by the Area Directors as subdividing efforts often dilutes the available technical expertise. Is there sufficient interest within the IETF in the working group’s topic with enough people willing to expend the effort to produce the desired result (e.g., a protocol specification)? Working groups require considerable effort, including management of the working group process, editing of working group documents, and contributing to the document text. IETF experience suggests that these roles typically cannot all be handled by one person; a minimum of four or five active participants in the management positions are typically required in addition to a minimum of one or two dozen people that will attend the working group meetings and contribute on the mailing list. NOTE: The interest must be broad enough that a working group would not be seen as merely the activity of a single vendor. Is there enough expertise within the IETF in the working group’s topic, and are those people interested in contributing in the working group? Does a base of interested consumers (end-users) appear to exist for the planned work? Consumer interest can be measured by participation of end-users within the IETF process, as well as by less direct means. Does the IETF have a reasonable role to play in the determination of the technology? There are many Internet-related technologies that may be interesting to IETF members but in some cases the IETF may not be in a position to effect the course of the technology in the "real world". This can happen, for example, if the technology is being developed by another standards body or an industry consortium. Are all known intellectual property rights relevant to the proposed working group’s efforts issues understood? Is the proposed work plan an open IETF effort or is it an attempt to "bless" non-IETF technology where the effect of input from IETF participants may be limited? Is there a good understanding of any existing work that is relevant to the topics that the proposed working group is to pursue? This includes work within the IETF and elsewhere. Do the working group’s goals overlap with known work in another standards body, and if so is adequate liaison in place? Considering the above criteria, the Area Director(s), using his or her best judgement, will decide whether to pursue the formation of the group through the chartering process. WG operation RFC 2418, Section 3: The IETF has basic requirements for open and fair participation and for thorough consideration of technical alternatives. Within those constraints, working groups are autonomous and each determines most of the details of its own operation with respect to session participation, reaching closure, etc. The core rule for operation is that acceptance or agreement is achieved via working group "rough consensus". WG participants should specifically note the requirements for disclosure of conflicts of interest in [2]. A number of procedural questions and issues will arise over time, and it is the function of the Working Group Chair(s) to manage the group process, keeping in mind that the overall purpose of the group is to make progress towards reaching rough consensus in realizing the working group’s goals and objectives. There are few hard and fast rules on organizing or conducting working group activities, but a set of guidelines and practices has evolved over time that have proven successful. These are listed here, with actual choices typically determined by the working group participants and the Chair(s). Requirement for WG minutes to be kept in all meetings: http://ietfreport.isoc.org/idref/rfc2418/#section-3.1 F2F decisions MUST be reviewed on ML: RFC 2418, Section 3.2: Each working group will determine the balance of email and face-to-face sessions that is appropriate for achieving its milestones. Electronic mail permits the widest participation; face-to-face meetings often permit better focus and therefore can be more efficient for reaching a consensus among a core of the working group participants. In determining the balance, the WG must ensure that its process does not serve to exclude contribution by email-only participants. Decisions reached during a face-to-face meeting about topics or issues which have not been discussed on the mailing list, or are significantly different from previously arrived mailing list consensus MUST be reviewed on the mailing list. but no voting! Robert took voting to be definitional of a deliberative assembly (FIXME: quote from p. 1) ‘Rough consensus’ as voting in unbounded, fluid context http://ietfreport.isoc.org/idref/rfc2418/#section-3.3 WG makeup changes over time Anyone can join just by subscribing to a mailing list voting unworkable in such a context rough consensus of people who care enough to participate turns out to be a workable substitute rough consensus obeys the same principles How does IETF’s process stack up to Petyt’s list? One subject at a time: (mostly) inapplicable in IETF WG case, as people can follow as few or as many mailing list threads as they’d like Alternation between opposite points of view in assignment of the floor: inapplicable, because this just naturally falls out in email back-and-forth Requirement that the chair always call for the negative: PSA said that they take positive and negative hums at F2Fs — also something here about consensus v. voting Peter Saint-Andre, in personal correspondence: They don’t take votes, but they do take "hums." If there is an issue of contention, the WG chair calls for a hum on it — he (or she) carefully constructs a proposition and then asks for those in favor to hum — The key is in carefully constructing the proposition — and then they ask those opposed to hum. It’s quite effective. Decorum and avoidance of personalities in debate: directly applicable; WG chair’s role as ML moderator Confinement of debate to the merits of the pending question: somewhat inapplicable in ML context, though chairs can and do call for this sort of thing from time to time PSA: one of the interesting things is the requirement for rough consensus *and* running code PSA: the IETF has gotten away from that somewhat EOC: *nod* PSA: but introduces a modern kind of check and balance EOC: yes EOC: spurious objections from non-implementors can be easily dismissed PSA: it’s funny how the necessary that something compile and run as defined will focus the mind PSA: s/necessary/necessity/ EOC: again, similar to some of the methods for dismissing motions in RR EOC: heh PSA: yes EOC: indeed Division of a question: at least in examples from the atom and atompub WGs, Paces get separated all the time. Probably generalizes to the WG chair’s responsibility to carefully frame a proposition for consensus call Peter Saint-Andre, in personal correspondence: If there is an issue of contention, the WG chair calls for a hum on it — he (or she) carefully constructs a proposition and then asks for those in favor to hum. The key is in carefully constructing the proposition. PSA: the IETF also has layers — there are WG members, spec authors, WG chairs who shepherd specs through the process, Area Directors, and then the IESG (which is made up of the ADs) PSA: so there are slightly different processes involved here and there PSA: e.g., the IESG votes EOC: right PSA: kind of like in the JSF we have the Council, 5 people who vote on whether to advance specs through the process PSA: and the Council is elected by the membership of the JSF PSA: which is really all the JSF membership is there for PSA: it’s a bootstrapping mechanism PSA: in the IETF they have this cumbersome thing called the NomCom (nominating committee) to get around the fact that they have no legal standing PSA: i.e., no official membership NomCom selection process: http://ietfreport.isoc.org/idref/rfc2282/#section-3 NomCom operation (quorum, etc.): later on in 2282 The IETF exists firmly within the tradition of Anglosphere civic organizations EOC: Right, I want to convey in the essay that there are constraints that operate on a deliberative group; the tighter the constraints, the more like traditional RR you get. The looser, the more like IETF WGs EOC: e.g., fixed size v. open membership EOC: geographically constrained v. distributed EOC: etc. PSA: yes, there’s a continuum here which all use the same meta-rules as you call them EOC: right EOC: and those meta-rules emerged over time in precedent PSA: so it seems EOC: I mean, Robert even straight up calls it "the common parliamentary law", not the more modern-sounding "parliamentary procedure" PSA: ah, interesting FIXME: note here that all page numbers are from RRoRNR 7th Ed. common law and parliamentary procedure similar historical development and workings quick recap of the evolution of common parliamentary law precedent in Parliament over time RR, p. xxvii: Parliamentary law originally was the name given to the rules and customs for carrying on business in the English Parliament which were developed through a continuing process of decisions and precedents somewhat like the growth of the common law. The kind of gathering in which parliamentary law is applicable is known as a deliberative assembly. This expression was first used by Edmund Burke to describe the English Parliament in a speech to the electorate at Bristol in 1774; and it became the basic term for a body of person meeting (under conditions detailed on p. 1) to discuss and determine upon common action. much like the common law itself RR, p. xxxi: In 1689, G. Petyt (London) listed as references for his small book, Lex Parliamentaria, thirty-five earlier parliamentary works or sources. In his book—a pocket manual prepared for the convenience of members of Parliament—Petyt includes entries from the Journals of the House of Commons relating to procedure, of which the following examples illustrate the gradual evolution of parliamentary law and are readily recognized as early wordings of present-day principles and rules: One subject at a time: 1581. When a Motion has been made, that Matter must receive a Determination by the Question, or be laid aside by the general sense of the House, before another be entertained. Alternation between opposite points of view in assignment of the floor: 1592. It was made a Rule, That the Chair-man shall ask the Parties that would speak, on which side they would speak…and the Party that speaketh against the last Speaker, is to be heard first. Requirement that the chair always call for the negative vote: 1604. It is no full Question without the Negative part be put, as well as the Affirmative. Decorum and avoidance of personalities in debate: 1604. He that digresseth from the Matter to fall upon the Person, ought to be suppressed by the Speaker…No reviling or nipping words must be used. Confinement of debate to the merits of the pending question: 1610. A Member speaking, and his speech, seeming impertinent, and there being much hissing and spitting, it was conceived for a Rule, that Mr. Speaker may stat impertinent Speeches. Division of a question: 1640. If a Question upon a Debate contains more Parts than one, and Members seem to be for one Part, and not for the other; it may be moved, that the same may be divided into two, or more Questions: as Dec. 2, 1640, the Debate about the Election of two Knights was divided into two Questions. principles fairness in debate respect for minority opinion