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

[Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]>]

I generally agree with Joe. There should be discussion but the
distribution of that discussion between meeting and mailing list is
not significant; however, there must be sufficient opportunity for
objection or additional comments on the mailing list and, in the case
of discussion at a meeting, the meeting notes should be sufficiently
details to give you a feeling for what discussion occurred.

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   [phone] (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 [e-mail]


On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Joe Touch <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
> On 11/27/2012 10:07 AM, Marc Blanchet wrote:
>>
>>
>> Le 2012-11-27 à 13:00, Barry Leiba a écrit :
>>>
>>>
>>> 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?
>>
>>
>> no. Our work is done both on mailing lists and f2f meetings. As co-chair
>> of a few wg, we have been doing great progress during f2f meeting with
>> high-bandwidth interactions.
>
>
> RFC2418 says that "business" happens in either place:
>
>    ...
>    All working group actions shall be taken in a public forum, and wide
>    participation is encouraged. A working group will conduct much of its
>    business via electronic mail distribution lists but may meet
>    periodically to discuss and review task status and progress, to
>    resolve specific issues and to direct future activities. ...
>
> Overall, WG *decisions* are supposed to be "consensus of the WG", not just
> those who happen to be present at a given meeting, so I would expect that
> such decisions would be confirmed on the mailing list even if initiated at a
> meeting. At most meetings I've attended, this is how action items were
> confirmed.
>
> So my conclusion is that:
>         - activity/participation can happen in either place
>         - consensus should include mailing list confirmation
>
> YMMV.
>
> Joe
>
>
>> so document shepherd and AD should exercise judgement on how to see the
>> community consensus/participation.
>>
>> Marc.
>>
>>>
>>> I realize that this question is going to elicit some vehemence.
>>> Please be brief and polite, as you respond.  :-)
>>>
>>> Barry, Applications AD
>>
>>
>