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

[David Meyer <[e-mail]>]

+1

--dmm


On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Geoff Huston <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> On 28/11/2012, at 5:00 AM, Barry Leiba <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Dale R. Worley <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> That attendance showed me that most of the IETF meeting was a
> >>> waste of time, that it was e-mail that was the main vehicle for work,
> >>> and I think that the IETF web site has it about right when it says
> >>
> >> This is all true.  Any decision come to during a meeting session must
> >> be reviewed and approved on the WG mailing list.  The reason for this
> >> is to ensure that one can participate completely *without* attending
> >> the meetings and paying the associated expenses.
> >
> > 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?
>
> I do not speak for the community, naturally, but this particular member of
> the community says: Very much so.
>
> if neither the mailing list or the minutes of the meetings are showing no
> visible activity then its reasonable to conclude that the document is not
> the product of an open consensus based activity, and the proponents behind
> the document, who presumably used other fora (presumably closed) to get
> their document up the the IESG. If the IESG rubber stamps this because "its
> just an informational" or "well, the document shepherd claimed that it had
> been reviewed" then the IESG is as derelict in its duty.
>
> If a document in WG last call gets no visible support on the WG mailing
> list then it should never head to the IESG, nor should the IESG publish to
> draft.
>
>
> >  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 do not speak for the community, naturally, but this particular member of
> the community says: yes, of course.
>
> regards,
>
>  Geoff
>
>
>
>