Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Sun, 12 August 2012 16:14 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.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 D34D121F85AC; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 09:14:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.579
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.579 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.020, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nKX9a+AJHy2x; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 09:14:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3177C21F8575; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 09:14:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.11] (adsl-67-127-55-201.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [67.127.55.201]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q7CGEqqv011500 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Sun, 12 Aug 2012 09:14:53 -0700
Message-ID: <5027D67B.2030409@dcrocker.net>
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 09:14:51 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Subject: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
References: <u2b8y2x43qn1esn7ege163mo.1344689258582@email.android.com> <50266F05.5050601@dcrocker.net> <1C6BB491-8B0B-4432-B633-6D8AA3B6477E@tzi.org> <50267826.70307@bbiw.net> <CAC4RtVARm1fXvHR4dv9Jh0HttW+ORhRx36kwF54RRjc4aOh1AQ@mail.gmail.com> <5027D0B2.80306@bbiw.net> <CALaySJKzxo=oHLcDxT=RbrwMK=pTSh6vxY-VvLZ0C5wf+T-DQQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJKzxo=oHLcDxT=RbrwMK=pTSh6vxY-VvLZ0C5wf+T-DQQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Sun, 12 Aug 2012 09:14:53 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: IAB <iab@iab.org>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 16:14:57 -0000

On 8/12/2012 9:02 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
>>> It's true that this was not put into an Internet Draft.  Apart from
>>> that, we seem to be doing the right thing: - The IAB Chair announced
>>> the text and the intent to sign it on 1 Aug.
>>
>> Two weeks is normal process for spontaneous consensus calls?
>
> 1 Aug to 24 Aug strikes me as nearly four weeks, not two.  If you want
> to propose that Russ add four more days, I'm sure your suggestion
> would be considered.  You don't appear to be suggesting anything
> constructive, though.

1.  You think 3 weeks is "nearly" 4?

2.  The "Last Call" was issued on 10 August, not 1 August.

Again, what's happening here is a form of 'let's ignore IETF process 
because this is such a wonderful cause'.

It is, indeed, a wonderful cause, but I don't recall our establishing 
rules that are to be applied only when we feel like it, or in varied 
manner that our management decides is sufficient.


>>> He asked for comments.
>>
>> No he didn't:
>
> "He", being the IAB Chair on 1 Aug, as I said in my message, did:
> << The IAB, IESG, IEEE-SA and W3C have been developing an “Affirmation
> of the Modern Global Standards Paradigm”.  Comments may be sent to
> iab@iab.org. >>

It's always a bit disconcerting to see an AD misinterpret process 
details this way, especially when it requires changing the reference to 
something that wasn't a Last Call.


> I any case, I recommend that you make specific, constructive
> suggestions about what we *should* do at this point.  Vague criticism
> that we're not doing it right are much less helpful, don't you think?

sigh.


d/


-- 
  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net