On Wed 28/Nov/2012 16:18:05 +0100 Keith Moore wrote: > On 11/27/2012 01:00 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: >> 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? > > Please, please, please push back on those discussions. > > Far too many documents are being represented as WG consensus, and then > IETF consensus, when there's nothing of the sort. This degrades the > overall quality of IETF output, confuses the community of people who > use IETF standards, and potentially does harm to the Internet by > promoting use of protocols that haven't been carefully vetted. > > Simply presenting a document at a face-to-face meeting and asking > people to raise hands or hum in approval isn't sufficient. A > necessary condition for IESG consideration of a WG document should be > that several people have posted to the WG mailing list that they've > read it, and that they consider it desirable and sound.
+1, s/several/some/, especially if qualified. jm2c
