Re: [apps-discuss] New appsawg documents

["t.petch" <[e-mail]>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Barry Leiba" <[e-mail]>
To: "t.petch" <[e-mail]>
Cc: <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>; "Apps Discuss"
<[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 7:27 PM
> > I want the process of producing an RFC to be challenging, to demonstrate
> > that there is support for this as an RFC and that there has been adequate
> > review. Asking for approval for seven I-Ds in three days does limit the
> > likely review, and indeed, I see that one I-D has already progressed
> > before even those three days are up, but I am not suggesting you extend it.
>
> Maybe you misunderstand the note that started this.  No one has asked
> for approval for *any* documents.  We've asked to hear objections to
> having the working group *process* the documents.  They still all have
> to get review and go through the same process they would have gone
> through as individual submissions -- but with *more* oversight and
> attention.  How do you think that will cheapen the process?

Yes I understand your note perfectly; giving the WG three days to
express an opinion on the adoption by the WG of 7 I-Ds
is not exactly a lot of oversight.  And as you say, making them
WG I-Ds reduces the work of the AD and chairs.  But you need
to know that there will be WG members willing to step up and
 review instead and that may or may not happen.  I have seen in other
WGs a determined author push an I-D through as a WG item
to RFC and have been left thinking that it never really got
reviewed.

So, as  I said, I will watch with interest how much review these
get.  (So far, I haven't exactly seen many people saying 'yes, good
idea - or even any idea)

Tom Petch

>
> We're also not handling seven at the same time.  My note said that
> we'd focus on three first, and each of those will progress at its own
> pace.  And be assured that any documents that have insufficient review
> and support will not make it to the ADs.
>
> That some have already "progressed" just means that we've given them
> working-group names.  If the working group decides not to handle any
> document, either by explicit decision or by neglect and lack of
> support, that document can still fail.  Further, most of these
> documents have already had significant review, comment, and
> discussion, some on this list and some elsewhere.
>
> I'd really prefer to see effort put into discussion of the documents,
> rather than into meta-discussion of the working group.  If, in the
> end, someone thinks that a document either got a "free pass" by being
> handled by the working group, or got mired in process that it would
> have avoided as an individual submission, we'd all like to hear about
> it then.  If it turns out that this working group isn't helping to do
> things right, we can and will shut it down.
>
> Barry