Re: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists"

ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com Tue, 27 November 2012 18:59 UTC

Return-Path: <ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.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 F03EA21F85C0 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 10:59:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 HWAd2B-9S3gW for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 10:59:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.59.230.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8993821F8570 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 10:59:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01ON45HQ17UO002FTS@mauve.mrochek.com> for ietf@ietf.org; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 10:54:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01OMGB2WUMLC00008S@mauve.mrochek.com> (original mail from NED@mauve.mrochek.com) for ietf@ietf.org; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 10:54:33 -0800 (PST)
From: ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com
Message-id: <01ON45HP32QY00008S@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 10:50:35 -0800
Subject: Re: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists"
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Tue, 27 Nov 2012 13:00:01 -0500" <CAC4RtVCogYS4tmY1LLi0C-E+B+di2_wTD0N-=AZrVR7-A8Mz+A@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN
References: <CAC4RtVCogYS4tmY1LLi0C-E+B+di2_wTD0N-=AZrVR7-A8Mz+A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Cc: IETF discussion list <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: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 18:59:37 -0000

> So here's my question:
> Does the community want us to push back on those situations?  Does the
> community believe that the real IETF work is done on the mailing
> lists, and not in the face-to-face meetings, to the extent that the
> community would want the IESG to refuse to publish documents whose
> process went as I've described above, on the basis that IETF process
> was not properly followed?

The issue isn't the lack of comments but any potential lack of opportunity to
comment. If the document was announced on the list, prefably including
ancillary about changes that have been made, and people chose not to comment
there, then that's fine. But if information about the document wasn't made
available - as is sometimes the case if the document isn't named under the WG - 
then that's a problem.

				Ned