I generally agree with Joe. There should be discussion but the distribution of that discussion between meeting and mailing list is not significant; however, there must be sufficient opportunity for objection or additional comments on the mailing list and, in the case of discussion at a meeting, the meeting notes should be sufficiently details to give you a feeling for what discussion occurred.
Thanks, Donald ============================= Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e...@gmail.com On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Joe Touch <to...@isi.edu> wrote: > > > On 11/27/2012 10:07 AM, Marc Blanchet wrote: >> >> >> Le 2012-11-27 à 13:00, Barry Leiba a écrit : >>> >>> >>> So here's my question: >>> Does the community want us to push back on those situations? 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? >> >> >> no. Our work is done both on mailing lists and f2f meetings. As co-chair >> of a few wg, we have been doing great progress during f2f meeting with >> high-bandwidth interactions. > > > RFC2418 says that "business" happens in either place: > > ... > All working group actions shall be taken in a public forum, and wide > participation is encouraged. A working group will conduct much of its > business via electronic mail distribution lists but may meet > periodically to discuss and review task status and progress, to > resolve specific issues and to direct future activities. ... > > Overall, WG *decisions* are supposed to be "consensus of the WG", not just > those who happen to be present at a given meeting, so I would expect that > such decisions would be confirmed on the mailing list even if initiated at a > meeting. At most meetings I've attended, this is how action items were > confirmed. > > So my conclusion is that: > - activity/participation can happen in either place > - consensus should include mailing list confirmation > > YMMV. > > Joe > > >> so document shepherd and AD should exercise judgement on how to see the >> community consensus/participation. >> >> Marc. >> >>> >>> I realize that this question is going to elicit some vehemence. >>> Please be brief and polite, as you respond. :-) >>> >>> Barry, Applications AD >> >> >
