I also support pushing back in those circumstances, but I do (or would, as an AD) accept the minutes as a record of WG discussion. Minutes are, or at least are supposed to be, posted to the list for discussion and informal approval by the WG. This just means the minutes, especially about documents that only got f2f discussion, need to be adequately detailed. Often, they are not.
-MSK On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 7:50 AM, Dave Crocker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 11/27/2012 10:00 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: > >> We see a string of versions posted, some with significant updates to >> the text, but *no* corresponding mailing list discussion. Nothing at >> all. >> > ... > > 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. >> > ... > > 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? >> > > > Just to add my own input to this: > > 'Want' is almost irrelevant. In formal terms, it does not matter what was > discussed at the face-to-face nor what notes are taken about it. > > The formal rules of the IETF are that mailing lists are where formal > decisions are made. > > The working group needs to establish /explicit/ support for changes /on > the list/. > > You are reporting that, in formal terms, the IESG has been approving > documents for which there is no formal record of community support... > > > d/ > > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net >
