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

[Hector Santos <[e-mail]>]

+1

John C Klensin wrote:
> 
> --On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 13:00 -0500 Barry Leiba
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> ...
>> 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?
>>
>> I realize that this question is going to elicit some vehemence.
>> Please be brief and polite, as you respond.  :-)
> 
> Barry,
> 
> I find myself agreeing with Geoff and Andrew in thinking that
> answer should usually be "yes, push back".  However, I think
> that unusual situations do occur and that different WGs,
> sometimes for good reason, have different styles.  As usual, I
> favor good sense over the rigidity of process purity.  So a
> suggestion: If a WG expects you the IESG to sign off on a
> document based primarily on meeting list discussions, two
> conditions should be met: (i) the minutes had better be
> sufficiently detailed to be persuasive that there really was
> review and that the document really is a WG product, not just
> that of a few authors (or organizations) and (ii) there has to
> be a clear opportunity, after the minutes appear (and Jabber
> logs, etc., are available) for people on the mailing list to
> comment on the presumed meeting decision.  I don't believe that
> more specific guidelines for either of those conditions are
> necessary or desirable other than to say that it is the
> obligation of the WG and its chairs/shepherds to present
> evidence that it persuasive to an IESG that out to be skeptical.
> 
> Speaking for myself only, of course.
> 
>     john
> 

-- 
HLS