On 11/27/2012 10:07 AM, Marc Blanchet wrote:
Le 2012-11-27 à 13:00, Barry Leiba a écrit :
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?
no. Our work is done both on mailing lists and f2f meetings. As co-chair
of a few wg, we have been doing great progress during f2f meeting with
high-bandwidth interactions.
RFC2418 says that "business" happens in either place:
...
All working group actions shall be taken in a public forum, and wide
participation is encouraged. A working group will conduct much of its
business via electronic mail distribution lists but may meet
periodically to discuss and review task status and progress, to
resolve specific issues and to direct future activities. ...
Overall, WG *decisions* are supposed to be "consensus of the WG", not
just those who happen to be present at a given meeting, so I would
expect that such decisions would be confirmed on the mailing list even
if initiated at a meeting. At most meetings I've attended, this is how
action items were confirmed.
So my conclusion is that:
- activity/participation can happen in either place
- consensus should include mailing list confirmation
YMMV.
Joe
so document shepherd and AD should exercise judgement on how to see the
community consensus/participation.
Marc.
I realize that this question is going to elicit some vehemence.
Please be brief and polite, as you respond. :-)
Barry, Applications AD