Re: [Atoca] ATOCA chairs - IETF process being violated?

["DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <[e-mail]>]

I also don't remember being asked if the WG wanted to adopt any WG documents.

I suggest you withdraw this one and submit an appropriate consensus call.

Keith 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] 
> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of James M. Polk
> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 6:28 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: [Atoca] ATOCA chairs - IETF process being violated?
> 
> ATOCA chairs
> 
> I'm personally glad this WG formed.
> 
> That said, one WG item was submitted today and I can't seem 
> to find in the list archives any call for the WG to approve 
> of any WG level documents.
> 
> The WG was announced in this message (from Aug 17th) 
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/earlywarning/current/msg0
> 0358.html
> 
> Martin, as one of two WG chairs, you welcomed all of us to 
> the WG Sept 1st 
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/earlywarning/current/msg0
> 0359.html
> 
> Martin, you're initial non-welcome message (Sept 14th) talked 
> about Beijing meeting slots 
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/earlywarning/current/msg0
> 0360.html
> and said this:
> 
> "
> We're expecting to spend some time on the following drafts:
> 
>    draft-rosen-atoca-cap
>    draft-rosen-atoca-server-discovery
>    draft-schulzrinne-atoca-requirements
> "
> 
> that meeting agenda thread continued until the first WG item 
> was submitted (Sept 24th) without the WG ever having a say in 
> whether or not this ID was good or bad to adopt 
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/earlywarning/current/msg0
> 0377.html
> 
> The very next message to this list (Oct 1st) had a rough 
> agenda 
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/earlywarning/current/msg0
> 0378.html
> that didn't even mention draft-ietf-atoca-cap-00.txt
> 
> Now on Oct 18th, draft-ietf-atoca-cap-00.txt is submitted - 
> again without the proper (or even a mention of) list 
> discussion about whether this ID is a good thing for the WG 
> to adopt or not.
> 
> Common guys - we can't start the WG by willfully violating 
> IETF WG process like this! One of the two of you (chairs) is 
> new, so this isn't really a surprise, but one of you authored 
> one of the core IETF process documents (RFC 2418), so there's 
> less tolerance here.
> 
> This cannot be tolerated and each of these documents need to 
> be rescinded (i.e., taken out of the ID repository) until the 
> WG approves them. I mean, there hasn't even been a 
> face-to-face meeting to have voices say yes or no (hums one 
> way or the other or ever thumbs pointed up or down). There's 
> been nothing within this WG to justify these two IDs being WG 
> items yet.
> 
> There's still time (6.5 hours) to have each resubmitted as 
> individual IDs and us discuss them properly in Beijing, and 
> maybe even indicate there that these should be put to the 
> ATOCA list for WG consideration. Before this happens, these 
> two IDs aren't properly WG items.
> 
> James 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> earlywarning mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning
>