Re: [I18ndir] Getting restarted and triage

["Patrik Fältström " <[e-mail]>]

On 14 Jun 2019, at 14:18, Marc Blanchet wrote:

> your description of the drafts seems to show that these are enough substantive that it requires a WG.

Friends,

In general I would agree with you Marc, as one would really like to have "a large bunch of people" that discusses these kind of things. In the IETF such "a large bunch of people" is called "a wg".

The sad thing, explained in Johns note, does not exist. However much we would like it.

Yes, I also would like to have a wg. Per issue. With tons of specialist experts. We just do not have them.

So, given that does not exist, we just have to face the fact that we know who the people are, on an individual level, that do have at least some clue, some time, and some interest to discuss these things. Lets call that "a small group of known people".

In the IETF, we call "a small group of known people" "a directorate".

Why do I explain this? Well, this because on 30.000 feet level, although the processes have been refined and specified and what not in the IETF, ultimately there is an internet-draft, it is sent to the IETF for last call, the IESG look at the feedback during last call and make a determination.

Our job, as "a small group of known people" is to help the shepherd IESG member to create whatever document needed, that suggest whatever we think is to be done, that will go on last call and not only pass, but more importantly "say the right thing".

Because we are here to do good shit!

That we would like to have a wg as a tool to create that, sure, I would like to have that as well. Just like a pony ;-)


To conclude, yes Marc, I agree with you, but I think we just have to face the fact we can never have an effective wg, and the best we can do regarding transparency, creation of documents when needed and produce good results that IESG can use in their determination is to have a good directorate.

   Patrik