I also support pushing back in those circumstances, but I do (or would, as
an AD) accept the minutes as a record of WG discussion. Minutes are, or at
least are supposed to be, posted to the list for discussion and informal
approval by the WG. This just means the minutes, especially about
documents that only got f2f discussion, need to be adequately detailed.
Often, they are not.
-MSK
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 7:50 AM, Dave Crocker <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
wrote:
On 11/27/2012 10:00 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
We see a string of versions posted, some with significant updates to
the text, but *no* corresponding mailing list discussion. Nothing at
all.
...
When I ask the responsible AD or the document shepherd about that, the
response is that, well, no one commented on the list, but it was
discussed in the face-to-face meetings.
...
We accept that, and we review the document as usual, accepting the
document shepherd's writeup that says that the document has "broad
consensus of the working group."
So here's my question:
Does the community want us to push back on those situations?
Just to add my own input to this:
'Want' is almost irrelevant. In formal terms, it does not matter what was
discussed at the face-to-face nor what notes are taken about it.
The formal rules of the IETF are that mailing lists are where formal
decisions are made.
The working group needs to establish /explicit/ support for changes /on
the list/.
You are reporting that, in formal terms, the IESG has been approving
documents for which there is no formal record of community support...
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net