Re: Progressing I-Ds Immediately Before Meetings

[Pete Resnick <[e-mail]>]

On 7/19/08 at 7:19 PM -0400, John Leslie wrote:

>You're missing the nature of consensus process.

Actually, John, I'm afraid it was you who missed the consensus. As 
Spencer writes:

>The relevant text in 2418 says
>
>7.1. Session documents
>
>   All relevant documents to be discussed at a session should be
>   published and available as Internet-Drafts at least two weeks before
>   a session starts.  Any document which does not meet this publication
>   deadline can only be discussed in a working group session with the
>   specific approval of the working group chair(s).  Since it is
>   important that working group members have adequate time to review all
>   documents, granting such an exception should only be done under
>   unusual conditions.  The final session agenda should be posted to the
>   working group mailing list at least two weeks before the session and
>   sent at that time to [e-mail] for publication on the IETF web
>   site.
>
>So I don't know where the "must have AD approval for exceptions" 
>thing came from, unless it's a misplaced need to have ADs approve 
>everything.

The consensus was to have WG chairs make a two-week deadline with 
exceptions if needed. As Ned pointed out:

>Funny, I myself don't see anything in here at all about an I-D 
>cutoff. What I do see is a fairly reasonable rule [...] about having 
>stuff available for review sufficiently early.
>
>You're confusing a rule with a procedure which has as one purpose to 
>try and enforce that rule. Since the procedure is something 
>implemented by the Secretariat, the question is what whose authority 
>would they accept to make an exception. Maybe they'd accept a 
>request from a WG chair. Or maybe not.

The cutoff is an arbitrary procedure to try (poorly IMO) to enforce 
the 2418 rule. It is the procedure, and the resultant non-consensus 
rule ("No drafts within 2 weeks of an IETF meeting") which is 
garnering these complaints.

>In consensus process, we work towards a situation that everyone can 
>agree to live with. We don't attempt to get everyone's view on 
>record.
>
>Once you reach consensus, you expect it to represent stability, 
>because people don't want to go through all that trouble again. 
>People adapt to the consensus.

On this we agree.

>Removing the automated cutoff would require changes in the way 
>various things are done.

Well, it might require changes to how things are done. However, it 
would not require changes to the consensus, and (IMO) would not 
change the outcome. WG chairs would be expected to follow the 
consensus as laid out in 2418, two weeks would be given for review 
(as now), exceptions could be made (as now), and the ADs would not 
have to be in the loop (which was never required by the consensus).

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf