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

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Thu, 29 November 2012 14:28 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.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 5ABE221F89EF for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 06:28:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 Nezb7V1MNckf for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 06:28:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lb0-f172.google.com (mail-lb0-f172.google.com [209.85.217.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2284D21F89E4 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 06:28:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lb0-f172.google.com with SMTP id y2so12472297lbk.31 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 06:28:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=q2yejxyeAShJcn9Dg/lPqzSzd7jtjYZg07CM/3o+nAU=; b=h7z9djTj0CyUELwVbZIhSSrLuAd4oM+e6vquyJz6rjM9TzD2hQ84dpsdnlWyP1XX2R N9n0M1nCpfsta2ECMbTPUIxcdim+jlJ8Y7tXar8rwZsfOPN7dmvBtwKpdvP5m4nWpcEM 8YlUEEfN6oS/NM0Jx7rWoSfuHtaewDneV0rHYeKb2KSRTjTSdxylfL3hU4A3kQ0umaOA Z/cO0ZMlMWbfDIggscK2KLNRCEhQ437yJJwrLdigHan6pGMHJBRPG0s+rgu5V0mwT5cm ur96yuWpxljqWkfWuXGRDO1lPSkBl45r9NF2jowsMt/dEsiQvWvg+77apJFSJJqSOCTU pySQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.152.111.68 with SMTP id ig4mr22099005lab.50.1354199279926; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 06:27:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.112.61.67 with HTTP; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 06:27:59 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <50B632AD.7070909@dcrocker.net>
References: <CAC4RtVCogYS4tmY1LLi0C-E+B+di2_wTD0N-=AZrVR7-A8Mz+A@mail.gmail.com> <50B632AD.7070909@dcrocker.net>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 06:27:59 -0800
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwZ-pPkgLi2dRH2ezaMMS+jwt1kipb0f6KTT91kaua-SRw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists"
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d04083b5108ffa504cfa31795
Cc: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, 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: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:28:02 -0000

I also support pushing back in those circumstances, but I do (or would, as
an AD) accept the minutes as a record of WG discussion.  Minutes are, or at
least are supposed to be, posted to the list for discussion and informal
approval by the WG.  This just means the minutes, especially about
documents that only got f2f discussion, need to be adequately detailed.
Often, they are not.

-MSK


On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 7:50 AM, Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> wrote:

>
>
> On 11/27/2012 10:00 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
>
>>   We see a string of versions posted, some with significant updates to
>> the text, but *no* corresponding mailing list discussion.  Nothing at
>> all.
>>
> ...
>
>  When I ask the responsible AD or the document shepherd about that, the
>> response is that, well, no one commented on the list, but it was
>> discussed in the face-to-face meetings.
>>
> ...
>
>  We accept that, and we review the document as usual, accepting the
>> document shepherd's writeup that says that the document has "broad
>> consensus of the working group."
>>
>> So here's my question:
>> Does the community want us to push back on those situations?
>>
>
>
> Just to add my own input to this:
>
> 'Want' is almost irrelevant. In formal terms, it does not matter what was
> discussed at the face-to-face nor what notes are taken about it.
>
> The formal rules of the IETF are that mailing lists are where formal
> decisions are made.
>
> The working group needs to establish /explicit/ support for changes /on
> the list/.
>
> You are reporting that, in formal terms, the IESG has been approving
> documents for which there is no formal record of community support...
>
>
> d/
>
> --
>  Dave Crocker
>  Brandenburg InternetWorking
>  bbiw.net
>