Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists")
Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com> Wed, 28 November 2012 18:53 UTC
Return-Path: <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A67BE21F87AC for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 10:53:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id W3ftoSd4vK8Z for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 10:53:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-gg0-f172.google.com (mail-gg0-f172.google.com [209.85.161.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3FC221F86C6 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 10:53:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-gg0-f172.google.com with SMTP id r1so873874ggn.31 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 10:53:24 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=41xHj5SWSYY55oh5le4TSm29iGWpq2YgydkX+QARFNY=; b=G8wJpJHwC8sy0fEwT+z/+Iflh74jN6GT2uYuE0sc8D07fCYgO0EeXX3VfRniAHxvol gqVuvYEgNcwqBSizzgaWXoDFw3+xU1cWzCt6lg2MUGXQm8ZpdqjWklitU9L7owhRCeDb xv5WOzHvYp4wvuGQAR6zNUO0xPAvWr7A/OfG1jigDDa5DmMYW8oRmCMrpq/lA3895Liw UqMIcUFUCqmjEfJfWPi6a357pGo2HuDsF2GM+5jFwzIhL7pYRGG5/fojNmJVRuOyIb9b XCt5WECHAP7qATaYUIFnaGMLqPDDv8c+MLjpxfWT/ZDLy56BnSKlpHB1DLb1MIBlIgJS o5tg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.58.243.166 with SMTP id wz6mr30224748vec.28.1354128804452; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 10:53:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.220.145.5 with HTTP; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 10:53:24 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 18:53:24 +0000
Message-ID: <CADnDZ894SLhPDcNtFBi=RypmWS3cW8yegcjLp-2FWLsrPqDKng@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists")
From: Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
To: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b86f4b25e97cf04cf92aea8"
Cc: barryleiba@computer.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 18:53:25 -0000
> It seems to me that these variants are dependent on the people in the WG, > the workload of the group, the chairs, past precedent, AD preferences, etc. > It makes it difficult on both draft editors and those seeking to follow the > discussion for there to be such a disparity from WG to WG on when to adopt > drafts. I'm not convinced that there is a one-size-fits-all solution here, but it > might be nice to coalesce a little from where we are today. > > So I wonder if perhaps we need clearer guidance on what the process is > actually supposed to look like and why. I think the IETF procedures are clear that the WG should authorise all works, not the chairs nor the ADs. However, chairs guide the discussions on the list (which in few times does not happen because we are volunteering), and ADs guide the chairs and direct the WG output. The WG input is only authorised by the participants through rough consensus. >So, yes, the chairs get to decide how they want to seed the document development process, and they have a pretty free hand in making that decision. Your ADs are always there for further guidance if you need or want it. AB> I disagree that chairs have such authority on process without checking the WG if there was an objection or not. The ADs are there for the chairs guidance too not only participants. The chairs role is important to encourage/manage participants input time/effort in faivor of the WG charters. However, I agree that chairs MAY take decision on behalf of WG because they want to save time and they know the WG initial opinion by experience (still they need to check if there is any objection). >But there's no formal process for that, and I think that's how we want it to be. I don't want no formal in a formal organisation, usually unformal process only happen in unformal organisations, so is IETF a formal or non-formal. I beleive we are in a formal so our managers (chairs and ADs) SHOULD follow formal procedures and participants MAY do both. I read the procedures and this is what I came out with if I am wrong please refer me to where does the procedure mention that WG Chairs have such authority. AB
- When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "IETF … George, Wes
- Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "I… Brian Trammell
- Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "I… Barry Leiba
- RE: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "I… Adrian Farrel
- Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "I… Olafur Gudmundsson
- Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "I… Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "I… Geoff Huston
- RE: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "I… George, Wes
- Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "I… Barry Leiba
- Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "I… Melinda Shore
- RE: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "I… SM
- Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "I… Randy Bush
- RE: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "I… Adrian Farrel
- Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "I… Geoff Huston
- Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "I… Spencer Dawkins
- RE: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "I… George, Wes
- Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "I… Melinda Shore
- RE: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "I… SM
- Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "I… SM
- RE: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "I… George, Wes
- Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "I… Dave Crocker
- RE: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "I… SM
- Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "I… Barry Leiba
- Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "I… Dave Crocker
- Creating an IETF Working Group Draft Dave Crocker
- Re: Creating an IETF Working Group Draft Arturo Servin
- Re: Creating an IETF Working Group Draft Arturo Servin
- Re: Creating an IETF Working Group Draft Arturo Servin
- Re: Creating an IETF Working Group Draft Melinda Shore
- Re: Creating an IETF Working Group Draft Arturo Servin
- Re: Creating an IETF Working Group Draft Dave Crocker
- Re: Creating an IETF Working Group Draft SM
- Re: Creating an IETF Working Group Draft Arturo Servin
- Re: Creating an IETF Working Group Draft Randy Bush
- Re: Creating an IETF Working Group Draft Randy Bush
- Re: Creating an IETF Working Group Draft Randy Bush
- Re: Creating an IETF Working Group Draft Melinda Shore
- Re: Creating an IETF Working Group Draft Arturo Servin
- Re: Creating an IETF Working Group Draft Melinda Shore
- Re: Creating an IETF Working Group Draft (off-top… SM
- Re: Creating an IETF Working Group Draft Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Creating an IETF Working Group Draft Russ Housley
- RE: Creating an IETF Working Group Draft Adrian Farrel
- Re: Creating an IETF Working Group Draft Dave Crocker
- Re: Creating an IETF Working Group Draft Melinda Shore
- Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "I… Fred Baker (fred)
- Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "I… Abdussalam Baryun