ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Showing support during IETF LC...

2013-02-22 19:29:55
Warren Kumari <warren(_at_)kumari(_dot_)net> wrote:

Normally I figure that if the draft is the product of a WG there is
already demonstrated support, and so I don't bother cluttering up the
list with "+1, me too, FTW!, etc." but is this actually the right thing
to do? What if I really think the draft is important / useful; is it
appropriate then? Or, if I think that the draft may not pass otherwise?
Is there any difference if it is not a WG product? 

What would Miss Manners say?

   Miss Manners would almost certainly say that clogging the <ietf> list
with +1 is bad manners. Let me explain a bit.

   The message from the IESG starts a formal process to "judge" "IETF
consensus". The rules of this may seem counter-intuitive, but they are
well-established.

   IETF Consensus is presumed if folks are "sufficiently" notified and
post nothing pointing out unresolved issues. Thus "I support" and
"I oppose" are both meaningless (and Miss Manners would say, "Don't
do it.")

   The process continues "long enough" for folks to react under
"normal" circumstances. Usually during this LastCall, a sponsoring
Area Director (IESG member) issues a "ballot" to the IESG members.
Traditionally, that AD ballots "Yes" at that time.

   Formally, it makes no difference what issues are raised in response
to a LastCall announcement: unless some other AD ballots Discuss, the
IESG will generally approve a WG submission by getting enough "No
Objection" ballots. The process is defined at:
www.ietf.org/iesg/voting-procedures.html

   More often than not, there are no comments either way to the <ietf>
list, and the ADs must read through the document themselves or rely on
a "directorate" review to find issues which might deserve a Discuss.
In theory, an individual raising an issue on the <ietf> list has the
same weight as a directorate review, but in practice each AD takes a
directorate review more seriously unless he/she knows the commentor
well.

   After the IETF-wide LastCall, the issue is placed on an IESG agenda,
whereupon it will generally pass in the absence of a Discuss, whether
or not anybody commented during the LastCall.

   There is a theory, observed mostly in the breach, that discussion
on the <ietf> list will follow and resolve any issues raised by an
individual responding to the LastCall. When this happens, it is a
Good Thing (TM).

   (I think this covers your particular questions; but if you disagree,
feel free to ask for clarification. Just please read the IESG statement
I linked to first.)

--
John Leslie <john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net>