On Tue, 27 Nov 2012, John C Klensin wrote:
> > > --On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 13:00 -0500 Barry Leiba > <barryle...@computer.org> 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. I agree, though I'd add the preference that the WGLC explicitly acknowledge the meeting notes as the record of discussion. Dave Morris
