Hi Barry,
I think from your message, you agree that discussion is important in
the decision of updates, which I share. I agree to not repeat any
unnecessary info, but if contradictions appear to procedure, it then
needs a reference or repeat.
The problem is that the I-D does not mention in the
publish-procedure-section-2 *discussion* as an important procedure
factor for submission nor even refers to what you call
process-of-discussion. I think mentioning that editor decides to
submit and accept input is a new thing that is not in the procedure
you refer to. Therefore, to be clear in the I-D it MUST clarify, is
there community consensus with editor decision, OR is their only
decision of editor.
It is clear from the draft if you read it, that the decision *is not*
for the internet-community in two issues: a) editor decision of
accepting a propose change, b) editor decision of change-updates to
submit to IESG. The discussion in the I-D is mentioned as just for
information not as decision making of submission.
Please note that this I-D informs:
1) The Tao will be published at <http://www.ietf.org/tao.html> and
<https://www.ietf.org/tao.html>. The initial content for the Tao web
page will come from the last Internet-Draft that was meant to replace
RFC 4677.
2) RFC4677 is not a formal IETF process document but instead an
informational overview. Therefore, the proposed Tao-webpage is the
same.
Abdussalam
========================================
On 6/17/12, Barry Leiba <barryleiba(_at_)computer(_dot_)org> wrote:
The abstract mentions 'many people', because many people may mean 4 to
10
people. The annonced I-D lacks the method of discussion in the community
(discussing such change), the draft mentions the input from any community
individual to be accepted by editor and then approved by IESG, but does
not
mention the methodology of discussion between community members nor
between editor and members, also no announcements of such updates
mentioned in draft.
On this, as well as on the rest of the comments in the same message:
The IETF already has a process for discussion, review, and consensus, and
this document neither changes any of it nor, I think, needs to repeat it.
Barry