On 01/25/2013 03:27 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
In the context of draft-farrell-ft, the above makes the idea of
WG LC in parallel with IETF LC either irrelevant or bad news.
If the WG Chair (or AD) concludes that a WG LC is needed, then
the procedure should not be invoked. If a WG LC is not needed,
then organizing things so that one is conducted in parallel with
the IETF LC risks having two discussions going on in parallel
with comments made to the WG list not being exposed to the
community (remember the days when IETF LC comments were
routinely sent to the IESG and not to the IETF list?). And, if
the WG does conduct a WG LC, the document can be read as
forbidding use of the FT procedure to condense and set timelines
on the rest of the process (something I'd suggest fixing if we
are going to go ahead with this).
That's a fair point and I'd be open to incorporating
a change to make that better if we are going ahead
with the experiment. I'll add a pointer to this mail
to the working copy [1] in a bit.
All of this points out one of my main concerns. Almost as a
side-effect, the proposal formalizes a number of informal
procedures and mechanisms work pretty well most of the time but,
because they are informal, can be used flexibly without a big
fuss. If we are going to formalize them, we really should be
asking questions about consensus, exception cases, and so on...
and risk another several steps in the direction of trying to
substitute procedures for judgment, responsibility, and
accountability.
I disagree that doing an experiment formalises these things.
I do agree that more thought would be needed if the
experiment turned up something that we did want to make
permanent.
S.
[1] http://down.dsg.cs.tcd.ie/misc/draft-farrell-ft-04.txt