I know Brian's call here is in response to Cullen formally objecting to Robert about my taking time to confirm the sense of the room on list, but I think we need to apply process rules uniformly here, regardless of who it is that wants the WG to move on their schedule.
I think the WG is being pushed to skip a step. I would like to formally ask that the WGLC be started after adequate time has been given to respond to my poll for the sense of the mailing list on wether the document is ready to go to WGLC. This WG just had a very active discussion (started by one of the editors of this draft, actually) about allowing adequate time for the list to review hums. A week was deemed the minimal acceptable time. Hiroshima was a very exceptional meeting. Very few of our regular attendees were there. As far as I know, only one of the authors of this draft was present. Both chairs and many of the other major contributors were not present. In light of these facts, while one could argue the hum was a "sense of the room" question, rather than a consensus call (and therefore needs no list confirmation), I felt it did. I was the chair tasked with the work of listening to the audio, assembling minutes, and confirming hums on list. I didn't feel enough participants were present for the chairs or AD to say the room really reflected the WG. I made a decision to send email asking for list confirmation if we should go to WGLC out of an abundance of caution. One can argue I didn't have to or shouldn't have asked the list for confirmation, but I felt it was the right thing to do, and issued the call for comments as chair. For consistency we should allow time for folks to comment. I understand this is a minor and procedural point. If folks care they can object once we go to WGLC, of course. However, considering how long this document has been on the table, and the long periods of time the editors have sometimes allowed to pass between revisions, waiting five more days to officially start WGLC does not adversely impact the work of the group and is the right thing to do to ensure consistent process is followed. (That said, please folks, start reviewing now!!! The editors need your comments!!!) To make it clear to the WG, I personally support taking this document to WGLC (and have indicated as such before) largely as an impetus to get reviewers and WG participants to comment on the document, which in my opinion still needs some work, but needs reviews to get that work done. However I do not feel all participants have been given adequate time to voice disagreement with taking this to WGLC, and feel we need to allow time for that. David On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 6:28 PM, Rosen, Brian <[email protected]> wrote: > This message announces a Working Group Last Call on > draft-ietf-p2psip-base-06. Due to the size of the draft and the lack of > extensive reviews, the WGLC will run until Dec 11th. Please get your > comments in ASAP. Those of you who have committed to review the document in > depth, this is your deadline, and we would appreciate your review before the > last minute. > > Brian > <as co-chair> > > _______________________________________________ > P2PSIP mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip > _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
