On 11/28/2012 7:58 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
Let's start with a basic point and work from there:
There is no formal process that involves "adopting" anything.
If you mean that we haven't documented a/the formal process, you are
correct. If you mean that the IETF has not moved towards rather formal
steps for explicitly adopting working group drafts, I disagree.
There is flexibility in the process that has developed, but it's become
quite formal. The first shakey steps were controlling assignment of
"draft-<wgname>" roughly 20 years ago and it has evolved from there.
Today, there is typically explicit text in the charter about adoption or
there is explicit wg approval.
There is nothing anywhere that specifies how the first version
of a WG document is formed.
Right. Our documentation of our formal processes has lagged.
The next part of your note summarizes a couple of common starting points
for drafts.
On 11/29/2012 11:06 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
Here's where we have a gap, you and I: what you call undocumented
policy I call a management choice.
There certainly are parts of wg management that are left to chair
discretion. However the IETF also likes to use squishy language like
"management choice" to avoid being disciplined in its formal processes.
We are constantly afraid of edge conditions, and use that fear as an
excuse for being inconsistent in the handling of typical cases.
In the current discussion, I think there needs to be an essential
distinction: For example, choosing editors is /formally/ a management
choice. Approval of drafts is not.
I think the essential point is the difference between 'what' and 'how'.
The IETF has unusual flexibility in the 'how', and often leaves the
choices to management... but implicitly based on acceptance of the
working group.
In very specific circumstances, such as selecting editors, the freedom
of management choice is permitted for the 'what'.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net