Re: [precis] Milestones changed for precis WG

["Marc Blanchet" <[e-mail]>]

On 28 Mar 2016, at 15:50, John C Klensin wrote:

> --On Monday, March 28, 2016 15:28 -0400 Marc Blanchet
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>> Marc, would you like me to submit these as individual I-Ds or
>>> WG I-Ds?  (They would be
>>> draft-[ietf|saintandre]-rfc[7564|7613|7700]-bis-00.)
>>
>> I'm sure that the wg is likely to be ok with wg drafts, but
>> let's do the normal process. Please submit first as
>> individual draft and we will call later for wg adoption.
>
> Marc,
>
> For whatever my opinion as a participant is worth, that would be
> meaningless, time-wasting, ritual for its own sake.

disagree. the step from individual to wg is the normal process and has 
no impact on technical work: the technical work can continue whatever 
the filename is. Let’s spend time on technical discussions on the 
content of the to-be-published draft.

Marc.

> These are
> the descendants of WG documents, responding to issues that came
> up during or immediately after LC.  The issues should have been
> detected earlier (a failing by the WG).  At least some of those
> issues arguably should have stopped the relevant documents
> pre-publication except that there seemed to be general feeling
> that is was better to get the documents out and then revisit the
> issues with revisions.  Based on your announcement, the WG has
> been kept open precisely to deal with that set of issues.
> Remembering that Peter is the author or co-author of the key
> drafts being revised, unless you have reason to believe that new
> drafts that he might create would be so far out of line that the
> WG couldn't use them as a starting point for discussion, the
> only things that going through individual drafts and then
> calling for WG adoption accomplish are to create extra ritual,
> extra confusion, and more delay in getting to substance.
>
> If there really is concern that these documents should be
> published first as individual drafts, wouldn't it be reasonable
> to see if you could get formal and substantive consensus (and a
> collection of committed volunteers and participants) for
> continuing with the WG?  As far as I know, that question has not
> been formally asked of the participants.  Given the extent,
> depth, and number of participants in the review of some of the
> documents -- to say nothing of whatever caused the issues that
> are now the topic of revisions-- it seems to me that a
> determination of whether you actually have critical mass to
> continue on a WG basis is a far more important next step than
> creating a ritual about WG adoption of a set of follow-on and
> correction documents.
>
>      john