On Tue, 27 Nov 2012, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 13:00 -0500 Barry Leiba
<barryleiba(_at_)computer(_dot_)org> wrote:
...
So here's my question:
Does the community want us to push back on those situations?
Does the community believe that the real IETF work is done on
the mailing lists, and not in the face-to-face meetings, to
the extent that the community would want the IESG to refuse to
publish documents whose process went as I've described above,
on the basis that IETF process was not properly followed?
I realize that this question is going to elicit some vehemence.
Please be brief and polite, as you respond. :-)
Barry,
I find myself agreeing with Geoff and Andrew in thinking that
answer should usually be "yes, push back". However, I think
that unusual situations do occur and that different WGs,
sometimes for good reason, have different styles. As usual, I
favor good sense over the rigidity of process purity. So a
suggestion: If a WG expects you the IESG to sign off on a
document based primarily on meeting list discussions, two
conditions should be met: (i) the minutes had better be
sufficiently detailed to be persuasive that there really was
review and that the document really is a WG product, not just
that of a few authors (or organizations) and (ii) there has to
be a clear opportunity, after the minutes appear (and Jabber
logs, etc., are available) for people on the mailing list to
comment on the presumed meeting decision. I don't believe that
more specific guidelines for either of those conditions are
necessary or desirable other than to say that it is the
obligation of the WG and its chairs/shepherds to present
evidence that it persuasive to an IESG that out to be skeptical.
I agree, though I'd add the preference that the WGLC explicitly
acknowledge the meeting notes as the record of discussion.
Dave Morris