+1 --dmm
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Geoff Huston <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 28/11/2012, at 5:00 AM, Barry Leiba <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Dale R. Worley <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >>> That attendance showed me that most of the IETF meeting was a > >>> waste of time, that it was e-mail that was the main vehicle for work, > >>> and I think that the IETF web site has it about right when it says > >> > >> This is all true. Any decision come to during a meeting session must > >> be reviewed and approved on the WG mailing list. The reason for this > >> is to ensure that one can participate completely *without* attending > >> the meetings and paying the associated expenses. > > > > This brings up a question that I have as an AD: > > > > A number of times since I started in this position in March, documents > > have come to the IESG that prompted me (or another AD) to look into > > the document history for... to find that there's basically no history. > > We see a string of versions posted, some with significant updates to > > the text, but *no* corresponding mailing list discussion. Nothing at > > all. The first we see of the document on the mailing list is a > > working group last call message, which gets somewhere between zero and > > two responses (which say "It's ready."), and then it's sent to the > > responsible AD requesting publication. > > > > When I ask the responsible AD or the document shepherd about that, the > > response is that, well, no one commented on the list, but it was > > discussed in the face-to-face meetings. A look in the minutes of a > > few meetings shows that it was discussed, but, of course, the minutes > > show little or none of the discussion. > > > > We accept that, and we review the document as usual, accepting the > > document shepherd's writeup that says that the document has "broad > > consensus of the working group." > > > > So here's my question: > > Does the community want us to push back on those situations? > > I do not speak for the community, naturally, but this particular member of > the community says: Very much so. > > if neither the mailing list or the minutes of the meetings are showing no > visible activity then its reasonable to conclude that the document is not > the product of an open consensus based activity, and the proponents behind > the document, who presumably used other fora (presumably closed) to get > their document up the the IESG. If the IESG rubber stamps this because "its > just an informational" or "well, the document shepherd claimed that it had > been reviewed" then the IESG is as derelict in its duty. > > If a document in WG last call gets no visible support on the WG mailing > list then it should never head to the IESG, nor should the IESG publish to > draft. > > > > Does the > > community believe that the real IETF work is done on the mailing > > lists, and not in the face-to-face meetings, to the extent that the > > community would want the IESG to refuse to publish documents whose > > process went as I've described above, on the basis that IETF process > > was not properly followed? > > > I do not speak for the community, naturally, but this particular member of > the community says: yes, of course. > > regards, > > Geoff > > > >
