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

[David Morris <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, 27 Nov 2012, John C Klensin wrote:

> 
> 
> --On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 13:00 -0500 Barry Leiba
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> >...
> > 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?
> > 
> > I realize that this question is going to elicit some vehemence.
> > Please be brief and polite, as you respond.  :-)
> 
> Barry,
> 
> I find myself agreeing with Geoff and Andrew in thinking that
> answer should usually be "yes, push back".  However, I think
> that unusual situations do occur and that different WGs,
> sometimes for good reason, have different styles.  As usual, I
> favor good sense over the rigidity of process purity.  So a
> suggestion: If a WG expects you the IESG to sign off on a
> document based primarily on meeting list discussions, two
> conditions should be met: (i) the minutes had better be
> sufficiently detailed to be persuasive that there really was
> review and that the document really is a WG product, not just
> that of a few authors (or organizations) and (ii) there has to
> be a clear opportunity, after the minutes appear (and Jabber
> logs, etc., are available) for people on the mailing list to
> comment on the presumed meeting decision.  I don't believe that
> more specific guidelines for either of those conditions are
> necessary or desirable other than to say that it is the
> obligation of the WG and its chairs/shepherds to present
> evidence that it persuasive to an IESG that out to be skeptical.

I agree, though I'd add the preference that the WGLC explicitly
acknowledge the meeting notes as the record of discussion.

Dave Morris