Re: Comments for <I-D of Publishing the "Tao of the IETF" as a Web Page>

[Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]>]

Hi Barry,

I think from your message, you agree that discussion is important in
the decision of updates, which I share. I agree to not repeat any
unnecessary info, but if contradictions appear to procedure, it then
needs a reference or repeat.

The problem is that the I-D does not mention in the
publish-procedure-section-2 *discussion* as an important procedure
factor for submission nor even refers to what you call
process-of-discussion. I think mentioning that editor decides to
submit and accept input is a new thing that is not in the procedure
you refer to. Therefore, to be clear in the I-D it MUST clarify, is
there community consensus with editor decision, OR is their only
decision of editor.

It is clear from the draft if you read it, that the decision *is not*
for the internet-community in two issues: a) editor decision of
accepting a propose change, b) editor decision of change-updates to
submit to IESG. The discussion in the I-D is mentioned as just for
information not as decision making of submission.

Please note that this I-D informs:

1) The Tao will be published at <http://www.ietf.org/tao.html> and
<https://www.ietf.org/tao.html>. The initial content for the Tao web
page will come from the last Internet-Draft that was meant to replace
RFC 4677.

2) RFC4677 is not a formal IETF process document but instead an
informational overview. Therefore, the proposed Tao-webpage is the
same.

Abdussalam
========================================

On 6/17/12, Barry Leiba <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> The abstract mentions 'many people',  because many people may mean 4 to
>> 10
>> people. The annonced I-D lacks the method of discussion in the community
>> (discussing such change), the draft mentions the input from any community
>> individual to be accepted by editor and then approved by IESG, but does
> not
>> mention the methodology of discussion between community members nor
>> between editor and members, also no announcements of such updates
>> mentioned in draft.
>
> On this, as well as on the rest of the comments in the same message:
> The IETF already has a process for discussion, review, and consensus, and
> this document neither changes any of it nor, I think, needs to repeat it.
>
> Barry
>