Re: Content-free Last Call comments

Hi Dave,
At 01:43 12-06-2013, Dave Cridland wrote:
> I strongly feel that positive statements have 
> value, as they allow the community to gauge the 
> level of review and consensus, and I suspect 
> that human nature means that we get more reviews 
> if people get to brag about it. I suggest that 
> if more than one bit of data is required, it's 
> simply asked for. Given that the text of IETF 
> Last Call announcements is not governed by any 
> process RFC that I'm aware of (feel free to 
> correct), I suggest simply putting a set of 
> optional questions there. I note this practise 
> has served the XSF very well. I do not think 
> this needs an endless bikeshed discussion on 
> what questions; the IESG can pick what it wants to know.
> If, on the other hand, only objections are 
> sought, then the text (which simply asks for 
> "comments") also needs changing. And the GenArt, 
> AppsDir, and SecDir reviews should only be send 
> when they have objections to publication, of course.
> If you feel that the only way to make either 
> change is to form a working group and publish an 
> RFC to change something undocumented in the 
> series, then I think we're stranded in a 
> bureaucratic quagmire with no chance of escape, 
> but I'll be happy to send "comments", as requested, nonetheless.
An interesting point in the above is level of 
review and consensus.  Here's what I know: there 
is going to be apathy, there might be attempts by 
a group to support a draft or even attempts to 
silence critics, there might be someone new to 
all this who might be commenting.  If it was my 
decision to make (and it is not) I would take 
those factors and some other points into 
consideration in making a determination about a document.
As I have read your reviews I have an approximate 
idea of the type of review you would do.  I read 
the draft and I notice some obvious issues; I 
downgrade your statement of support to a tweeter 
comment.  I read the draft and I notice an 
obvious issue; I consider your statement of support as good enough.
I have read the reviews from the IAB Chair.  I 
read the draft and I notice that it is not 
well-written; I downgrade the statement of 
support of the IAB Chair to a tweeter comment.  I 
read the draft and I notice that it is good to 
go.  However, I don't find any comments about it 
except for a statement of support from the IAB 
Chair.  I don't say that there is 
consensus.  Note that this is really a personal 
decision; someone else might say that there is 
consensus.  It's not a problem unless the IESG is 
affected by the Abilene paradox.
The XSF is likely a group of people who can write 
code.  The IETF is a bunch of people who might 
discuss about content-free comments but won't 
comment about the draft. :-)  Drawing up a set of 
optional questions will generate a bottom-up 
discussion and that would be against the values 
which the IETF cherishes. :-)  There isn't 
anything preventing an Area Director or someone 
else from asking optional questions during a Last 
Call.  Optional questions from an IETF 
participant might be ignored if such activity 
would turn a Last Call into the Tribunal del Santo Oficio de la Inquisición.
If you are doing an AppsDir review, for example, and you state:

   The draft is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard.

I presume that you can personally explain the meaning of that sentence.

If you are an individual responding to a Last 
Call you can say anything you wish.  If your 
message is littered with spelling mistakes or it 
does not contain any substantive comment, it 
won't bear much weight.  If your English writing 
skills is not that good but your code is good the 
message will bear more weight.  If your message 
is to show your management that you are 
participating in the IETF the message will not bear much weight.
It's simple enough.  I would send a message if I 
believe that it can affect the decision.  It's up 
to me to know what will influence the content and fate of the draft.
Regards,
-sm