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

SM <> Tue, 27 November 2012 20:48 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E9B321F8570 for <>; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 12:48:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GQkr1nRuOgYU for <>; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 12:48:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF4DA21F84D7 for <>; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 12:48:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (IDENT:sm@localhost []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qARKm3Ta025284; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 12:48:06 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail2010; t=1354049287; bh=BaOI7qja82LrdtIGXGkzk7QDA+Wpla9is8ORrtQ4A7M=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=wVx9Vk32imdj2ybgo67qD3JM6Qmm0g712/M9WW4JLW+LsIlSxzOv5z+5MyvfcPgG/ Q67rw/lg66YOZUUki9DZZ9QcCR7U0epjDA/B5pDbb1wAtbLnQ9t2W14b1UoIf4gZZv isTR3/83+c/m5wlJKlhJfQrUeoQjahk/tR3+jCZ4=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1354049287;; bh=BaOI7qja82LrdtIGXGkzk7QDA+Wpla9is8ORrtQ4A7M=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=AxaLfmiVkDyk9OZ82i9zK9DCezm5fGMAStK4IFl4jZvVTb+S782Eg0MYgwb3eRbiI on7vZmo5iq4zmi66gOTzMiOen0322C2hSgvKBqX/gywBJI+jods9258LzOs4eEEf4O LhBJNSo47/hY4c1j0lUkw/oyN2TdA5VLumex4U1Q=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 12:37:29 -0800
To: Barry Leiba <>
From: SM <>
Subject: Re: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists"
In-Reply-To: <CAC4RtVCogYS4tmY1LLi0C-E+B+di2_wTD0N-=AZrVR7-A8Mz+A@mail.g>
References: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 20:48:15 -0000

Hi Barry,
At 10:00 27-11-2012, Barry Leiba wrote:
>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?  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?

A working group would be using consensus by apathy if there isn't any 
mailing discussion or any trace of discussions in the minutes.  The 
alternatives are to push back or shut down the working group.