Pete,
I an in complete agreement with this note, but want to expand on
one point...
--On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 15:01 -0800 Pete Resnick
<presnick(_at_)qti(_dot_)qualcomm(_dot_)com> wrote:
On 14 Feb 2017, at 9:05, Dave Crocker wrote:
...
To Ted's point, indulging folk who 'did not have time' to
participate earlier is frankly abusive of all those who did.
Yeah, I don't find Ted's point at all convincing either. On
the other hand, if the WG didn't seek out required expertise
and someone does notice a showstopper, that's not abusive. The
WG screwed up.
I think this is key (and another reason I worry about excessive
homogeneity). It is the WG's responsibility to understand the
context of whatever they are proposing, to seek out additional
expertise if it is needed, and to incorporate relevant work
before requesting IETF Last Call. While one can go too far
about this (I would not propose a Rule), if a serious issue is
identified during Last Call, even or especially one that takes
a lot of time and energy to resolve, it should generally be
treated as "shame on the WG for not anticipating and dealing
with the issue" not "shame on the person who finds the problem
for not finding the time and resources to participate in the WG.
This isn't a matter of casting blame, but comments resembling
"you didn't participate in the WG so you have no standing to
raise that objection during Last Call" is as obnoxious and
likely to be harmful to the process as "you raised that issue
and lost, shut up".
best,
john