On 29/11/2012, at 2:36 AM, "George, Wes"
<wesley(_dot_)george(_at_)twcable(_dot_)com> wrote:
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of
John Leslie
I'm increasingly seeing a "paradigm" where the review happens
_before_ adoption as a WG draft. After adoption, there's a great lull
until the deadline for the next IETF week. There tend to be a few,
seemingly minor, edits for a version to be discussed. The meeting time
is taken up listing changes, most of which get no discussion. Lather,
rinse, repeat...
[WEG] I've seen several discussions recently across WG lists, WG chairs list,
etc about this specific topic, and it's leading me to believe that we do not
have adequate guidance for either WG chairs or participants on when it is
generally appropriate to adopt a draft as a WG document. I see 3 basic
variants just among the WGs that I'm actively involved in:
1) adopt early because the draft is talking about a subject the WG wants to
work on (may or may not be an official charter milestone), and then refine a
relatively rough draft through several I-D-ietf-[wg]-* revisions before WGLC
2) adopt after several revisions of I-D-[person]-[wg]-* because there has
been enough discussion to make the chairs believe that the WG has interest or
the draft has evolved into something the WG sees as useful/in charter; Then
there are only minor tweaks in the draft up until WGLC (the above model)
3) don't adopt the draft until some defined criteria are met (e.g.
interoperable implementations), meaning that much of the real work gets done
in the individual version
4) adopt after seeing a reasonable number of WG members post "NOT in favour of
adoption", on the purported grounds that such expressions of disinterest in
adopting the draft by some strange twist of logic are portrayed to point to
"interest in discussing the document"
Geoff