Brian - I think part of my difficulty in understanding what has
transpired is that the process was truly "invisible" and what little
written record exists is misleading. I now infer that the initial entry
in the minutes of the IESG meeting of 2005-04-14 records that Allison
took responsibility for managing the process to reach a decision within
the IESG and for writing a response, and that the IESG then had a
discussion and approved the final response on 2005-05-26.
I understand that this process was an IESG decision and much of the
discussion took place on line. But there appears to be no other record
about the decision than a few terse entries in the IESG minutes.
Following up on your comparison with IETF WGs, WG debates and decisions
formally take place on a public mailing list, so there is a record of
the process through which the decision was made. In the case of this
IESG decision, the only information I have about the decision is the
announcement of the decision.
The problem for me, then, is that I was surprised by the IESG decision
and am trying to understand how the IESG reached its decision. Now I
understand that the IESG deliberated for six weeks, from which I infer
there was consideration of both technical and procedural issues arising
from the initial request.
- Ralph
On Mon, 2005-06-27 at 17:10 +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Ralph,
I'm not sure I understand your question. This is the IETF so
we take decisions by on line deliberation inside the IESG
just as much as any WG does, and the minutes or IESG announcements
are the public record. And this decision, and the formulation
of the response to IANA and the announcement, took a number
of weeks. We agreed apart from final wordsmithing in the May 26
meeting (agenda item 6.2).
Brian
Ralph Droms wrote:
Brian...
On Sun, 2005-06-26 at 17:50 +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Ralph,
Ralph Droms wrote:
I'd like to understand the process through which Dr. Roberts' request
was reviewed. The first reference I can find to Dr. Roberts' request is
in the 2005-04-14 minutes of the IESG
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/view_telechat_minute.cgi?
command=view_minute&id=318 see below). According to the rejection
announcement, the IESG reviewed the submission and determined that
"Reviewing this proposal within the IETF as an alternative to the
ongoing work would be a multi-year endeavor. The IESG is pessimistic
that this effort would ever achieve consensus." The minutes refer to
discussion of a "management issue". Was the entire review conducted in
the meeting on 2005-04-14, or was there additional review conducted
prior to that meeting? How, exactly, did the IESG review the submission
and how did the IESG come to its conclusion?
- Ralph
This took many weeks, considerable email, and several informal
discussions before the IESG was sure of its position and able to
record a conclusion in the meeting you cite. Since there was no
IETF contribution (I-D or email on a public list) this process
was indeed invisible. I would have preferred a discussion based
around an IETF draft, but we didn't have one.
Brian
I don't understand the cause-and-effect: why would the lack of an IETF
contribution lead to an invisible process?
Dr. Roberts' original request was apparently received by IANA on
2005-03-25 and forwarded by IANA to the IESG on 2005-04-07. Did the
IESG reach its conclusions about the request during its 2005-04-14
teleconference or at a later time? It may be that the IESG minutes
aren't clear...
- Ralph
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf