Responses to Cullen below, but this is getting to the point
where unless someone else who likes the idea wants to join
the discussion, I'm going to conclude that we're collectively
either unwilling or unable to consider 3933 experiments and
regard this one as dead, which maybe means 3933 is dead-ish
too, I dunno. (And before someone asks: no, I don't conclude
that its just a problem with this particular experiment, and
yes, I might be wrong there:-)
On 01/29/2013 05:06 AM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) wrote:
My read of this draft is that it eliminates the need for rough consensus at
both the WG and IETF level. Basically the WG chair can just decide and even
if the WG disagrees with the chair. If the WG does not have consensus in WGLC
that they they do want to publish the draft, it still gets published. I
realize from the email list discussions this may not be what the author of
the draft intended but it is how I read this draft.
Right, that is not the intent. I also don't think this
experiment would have that effect, but neither of us
can prove either thing. I'll note yet again that this
experiment would only affect a few drafts where WG chairs
have chosen to try it out, and only for a year, so I
fully disagree that this "eliminates the need for rough
consensus" at all and consider that as a fairly whopping
overstatement that assumes that all drafts must follow
this fast-track process and assumes that the worst thing
happens as a result.
Because of this, I am against approving this and also believe it would need
to be BCP not experimental as it changes the fundamental process to approve
PS drafts.
If you've read 3933 then I don't get how you can say
that - 3933 calls for this draft to be last called for
experimental.
The rest of this draft, the part about overlapping, is already allowed by the
process today as the draft points out. The WGLC is not required at all, the
AD processing and IETF LC can overlap. However, I think that the AD should
do their processing before they LC the draft because that means they check it
is ready before wasting the IESG and everyone else's time revving a document.
AD processing can often be done in a few hours or less if the draft is ready.
Generally, WGLC avoids late surprises which take more time in the long run
but all of this is a general guideline and there are cases where it make
sense to overlap all this and put it through. Thus I think it is good that
the current process allows this to all be overlapped at the chair and AD
discretion.
That seems to contradict your first paragraph where you
seem to say that we do need a WGLC so I'm not getting
how those can go together.
I encourage the AD & Chairs to overlap where they think it will 1) is
appropriate 2) will speed things up and 3) the speed up actually helps the
internet or some groups of users in a meaningful way. I'm certainly not
against some chairs, ADs, etc trying to put a draft throughout quickly that
they think is ready (running code or not) but I don't see the need for this
change to the process.
Again, its not a process change. Its meant as a process
experiment. That means that after a year, things go back
to where they were, and we evaluate whether or not there's
anything that ought become a process change.
I also have a question for the each IESG member that I think is very relevant
- Do all of you agree to only put discussed that meet the "Discuss Criteria"
this draft refers too? I really hope you do. If you don't that raises even
more issues for how this draft changes the process.
There's an IESG statement [1] that says that and that
does get brought up when one AD thinks another's
DISCUSS doesn't meet the criteria. That doesn't
happen on every call, but maybe every month or two,
and the DISCUSSing ADs do afaics take that seriously.
Authors and chairs ought to feel free to say if
they think the DISCUSS doesn't fit [1] IMO, (not
many do, mostly former ADs funnily enough;-) so
I don't think other IESG members need to directly
respond here.
Cheers,
S.
[1] https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
Cullen
On Jan 11, 2013, at 8:14 AM, The IESG <iesg-secretary(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'A Fast-Track way to RFC with Running Code'
<draft-farrell-ft-03.txt> as Experimental RFC
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing lists by 2013-02-08. Exceptionally,
comments may be
sent to iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
Abstract
This memo describes an optional, fast-track way to progress a working
group document to IESG review. It is provided as a process
experiment as defined in RFC 3933 for use when working group chairs
believe that there is running code that implements a working group
Internet-Draft. The motivation is to have the IETF process
explicitly consider running code, consistent with the IETF's overall
philosophy of running code and rough consensus.
In this process all of working group last call, IETF last call, and
Area Director review are carried out in the same two week period.
Only comments that meet IESG Discuss criteria need to be addressed
during this stage, and authors are required to make any changes
within two weeks.
This experiment will run for one year.
The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-farrell-ft/
IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-farrell-ft/ballot/
No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.