From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of
Melinda Shore
I'm not very clear on what problem you're trying to solve, or why it's a
problem. I've seen some stuff around working group draft adoption that
I don't like very much but am not sure that I'd identify those as a
"problem," per se, or that they would be done better with yet another
process document.
[WEG] My original message simply notes that this is the 3rd or more time in my
recent memory that there has been a serious question within some part of the
IETF about when in a document's lifecycle and maturity is the "right" time to
adopt it as a WG document, and whether it is appropriate to discuss an
individual document in a WG at any length without adopting it. It seemed odd to
me that there would be this much confusion on the matter, and I provided
several examples of different philosophies that I have observed when it comes
to handling this question. The response I got back indicated that WG adoption
of drafts isn't really "a thing" as far as the official documentation of
document lifecycle is concerned, which made me wonder if perhaps we do as much
WG adoption of drafts as we do mainly out of inertia, either people doing it
because that's how they've seen others do it in the past, or doing it because
they assume it's part of the documented process, rather than for any!
real reason. I'm not a big fan of doing things for no reason, so the ensuing
discussion was intended to tease this out a bit to see whether we should have
some clearer guidelines around WG draft adoption, better education on the
reasoning behind it, or whether maybe we should stop doing it. Is it the
largest problem facing the IETF? Not by a long shot. But it seemed worth a
little discussion, at least to me.
Process we just don't happen to like is not a problem.
[WEG] process we don't happen to like because it adds no value or confuses
people or wastes time is very much a problem. But I didn't bring this up
because I didn't like the process, I brought it up because I was seeking a
little clarity on the underlying reasons we use the process (at least partially
to improve my own knowledge as a WG chair and draft author). Thus far that
clarity has still not presented itself.
Wes George
This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable
proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to
copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for
the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not
the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the
contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be
unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender
immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and
any printout.