ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Good practices (was: Gen-art LC review: draft-secretaries-good-practices-06)

2014-08-10 06:18:51
   This is a good thread to note a general question; but first I'll
stick to the question raised...

Adrian Farrel <adrian(_at_)olddog(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk> wrote:
To: "'S Moonesamy'" <sm+ietf(_at_)elandsys(_dot_)com>, 
<ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>

There is text that affects the secretarial role in section 6.1.
Should any of that be updated? In particular, given the discussion
of delegation in the reviews of this document, should delegation
be discussed more explicitly in this section? This would be a
good place to discuss whether it's appropriate for a chair to
delegate calling consensus to a secretary.

   The Secretary role should _not_ be a Junior-Varsity WGC, IMHO.

The authors and shepherd are still working on synthesising the comments
received during last call and preparing their answers.

   Last Call is a process where we spend, e.g. two, weeks collecting
comments about a document. This is the _first_step_ only, IMHO.

i don't believe this document is at the top of their list of
priorities - it will not lead to shipping code that resolves to revenue!

   I believe the Last Call process gets quite confused when there is
no prompt response. It should be _somebody's_ responsibility to map
out the rest of the process and estimate how long it will take.

I am the responsible AD for that stage of the process and I note
that while the last call period has expired,

   This phrase is unfortunate, IMHO: It suggests that the "Last Call
Period" marks the end of something.

   It does _not_ mark the end of comments!

   IMHO, it marks the _desired_ date for comments to be received, so
that appropriates responses can be scheduled.

the discussion of the last call comments is still (slowly) on-going
and making any attempt at a consensus call would be premature.

   I agree 100% with Adrian!

   But to say "The Last Call period has ended" sounds like "Last Call
has ended:" suggesting that no further comments are appropriate.
To misunderstand it that way is natural. :^(

I would appreciate some input about the following questions:

(a) Is it appropriate for a WG Chair to delegate calling consensus
    to a WG Secretary?

(b) Is it appropriate for a WG Chair to delegate calling consensus
    to a shepherd?

(c) Is the determination of IETF Consensus based on public review?

   SM thinks differently than many of us... But he always raises good
questions.

I suppose you are hoping for this list to provide "some input".

   Adrian recognizes that questions, as well as comments, are an
appropriate part of the Last Call process -- and of course that such
questions may be raised after the end of the "Last Call period".

Fair enough, but why don't you start the ball rolling by giving
*your* opinions and the reasoning you have used to reach your
conclusions?

   Adrian here is trying to get the ball rolling without seeming to
pre-judge the issues. But were he to _demand_ that SM start this
ball rolling would have been inappropriate, IMHO.

   So I'll offer to "start the ball rolling" with my opinions ...

(a) IMHO it is not appropriate for a WGC to delegate calling consensus;

(b) see (a);

(c) the deterimation of IETF Consensus is not "based on" public review;
    but is always subject to appeal.

====

   It would help, IMHO, for Adrian to explain what parts of the Last
Call process remain and give _some_ estimate of when they might
complete. There is really no reason he shouldn't do this -- except
that it _seems_ unusual to actually try to manage the remainder of
the Last Call process.

   I see entirely too many cases where the remainder of the Last Call
process drags on too long.

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