RE: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists")

SM <sm@resistor.net> Thu, 29 November 2012 23:40 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
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 E26BA21F8B1E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 15:40:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 e63jm8KRqBhn for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 15:40:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D4D221F8B25 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 15:40:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qATNeiDK015315; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 15:40:47 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1354232449; bh=NY4R3YuxYFRSXjkak4fPJjfhY6U/K8BNDEPzmlfQRlc=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=XWVOwjV5rUE/PQ2GVwW6KKkUrgEi+Xv8M1OemGE/QFScRjYcojLb5t3qLZmI5EERh vgtFTQfm/LU8N/+AoqP8P0W2YhAIn0bXuBt/wmsT+V5jwXHhf3dZxtpaTEmb0WzX52 +ib/OkJGjCSRu4HlNdLUfc+Z049UWbIpMl4Eiyow=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1354232449; i=@resistor.net; bh=NY4R3YuxYFRSXjkak4fPJjfhY6U/K8BNDEPzmlfQRlc=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=luSrgpZ/eE1Woo80iJtH5ARkNXe97nFaZKnuNjzPsybKBMi8OqNxYNN1zAO22A4VI YvqCGPv8rlsBXdKsEqeylGemoJqeU4atI1O3bmv25CHGrQemue6LEaSWidK8tmtDRq OWHiN3ARZHuUUJmGCt0ysYyqUdQaLwib+nZDRH/4=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20121129133139.0a015900@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 15:39:51 -0800
To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
Subject: RE: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists")
In-Reply-To: <02ba01cdce76$be921580$3bb64080$@olddog.co.uk>
References: <2671C6CDFBB59E47B64C10B3E0BD5923033897C9BF@PRVPEXVS15.corp.twcable.com> <CALaySJLT=6RTZahqB1LO_Aw=7sAMiyrXK=xacwrBgLieZhqeDw@mail.gmail.com> <2671C6CDFBB59E47B64C10B3E0BD59230338A657EC@PRVPEXVS15.corp.twcable.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20121129105444.0b8d3400@resistor.net> <02ba01cdce76$be921580$3bb64080$@olddog.co.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: ietf@ietf.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: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 23:40:53 -0000

Hi Adrian,
At 13:16 29-11-2012, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>What about drafts that not for discussion at a session? What about drafts that
>have completed last call or are in IESG processing?

I did not verify the state of the drafts for above when I listed the 
working groups.  I listed a working group which did not have any 
session.  I know that one of the working groups in the list has 
documents going through IESG processing.  If you ask me whether the 
list is a good representation of the text I quoted, my answer would be no.

There are three meetings slots in a year.  If a group misses that 
slot it losses the opportunity for three months of work (assuming 
that there is discussion on the mailing list).  People are free to 
object to object about the process not being followed to the letter 
or about arbitrary decisions of the chair.  If I was a WG Chair and 
somebody asked why the work is being delayed or the working group is 
doing nothing I would point to the objection.  What I won't say is 
whether people who will be implementing the work or who are actually 
going to review the work will walk away.

Regards,
-sm