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

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Thu, 29 November 2012 14:30 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
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 5161F21F89E4 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 06:30:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.719
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.719 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 r-Yb8xUAypC7 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 06:30:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (mail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 799E521F89FC for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 06:30:13 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=beta; t=1354199411; bh=Cu5LXUur/NZENGo73U4iGSYcRbKsj6JJvmLZzKBr0Gw=; l=2186; h=Date:From:To:References:In-Reply-To; b=M8oqYVf6fms/UyLK1AWIF6a7et/d5hdIUgtuxyH3HSyiLUgGvvqKnKmnWRRJ40GNO DxmfwegciwWDBxLttuTU1AwTBUr9hMDq84sNagQEoVPkHirlnGrqf9HgVEb3ONXqB2 afMJSdJk4XR3cdTg+RXQUNDLLyw4ImILHetYvXBU=
Received: from [172.25.197.158] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.158]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLSv1/SSLv3,256bits,AES256-SHA) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 15:30:11 +0100 id 00000000005DC035.0000000050B77173.0000493D
Message-ID: <50B77173.9050507@tana.it>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 15:30:11 +0100
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists"
References: <CAC4RtVCogYS4tmY1LLi0C-E+B+di2_wTD0N-=AZrVR7-A8Mz+A@mail.gmail.com> <50B62B2D.1020603@network-heretics.com>
In-Reply-To: <50B62B2D.1020603@network-heretics.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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 14:30:20 -0000

On Wed 28/Nov/2012 16:18:05 +0100 Keith Moore wrote:
> On 11/27/2012 01:00 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
>> This brings up a question that I have as an AD: A number of times
>> since I started in this position in March, documents have come to
>> the IESG that prompted me (or another AD) to look into the document
>> history for... to find that there's basically no history. We see a
>> string of versions posted, some with significant updates to the
>> text, but *no* corresponding mailing list discussion. Nothing at
>> all. The first we see of the document on the mailing list is a
>> working group last call message, which gets somewhere between zero
>> and two responses (which say "It's ready."), and then it's sent to
>> the responsible AD requesting publication. 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. A look in the minutes of a few meetings
>> shows that it was discussed, but, of course, the minutes show little
>> or none of the discussion. 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?
> 
> Please, please, please push back on those discussions.
> 
> Far too many documents are being represented as WG consensus, and then
> IETF consensus, when there's nothing of the sort.   This degrades the
> overall quality of IETF output, confuses the community of people who
> use IETF standards, and potentially does harm to the Internet by
> promoting use of protocols that haven't been carefully vetted.
> 
> Simply presenting a document at a face-to-face meeting and asking
> people to raise hands or hum in approval isn't sufficient.   A
> necessary condition for IESG consideration of a WG document should be
> that several people have posted to the WG mailing list that they've
> read it, and that they consider it desirable and sound.

+1, s/several/some/, especially if qualified.

jm2c