If I understand your email, your question at the end is about my opinion on the matters we are wandering around. My main concern is that we follow the rules we have on WG Interims, rough consensus of WGs, and other procedural matters. While I have opinions about when and how often itnerims are useful, that clearly varies by cases and working groups, so I see no point in pushing a general opinion.
I do share the concerns that others have expressed that various
policies disenfranchise various subgroups of folks. Which is not
good.
Yours,
Joel
On Sun, Jul 16, 2023 at 7:54 PM Joel Halpern <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Your argument seems to have nothing to do with design teams.
why not? RFC2418 BCP25 determines the DT and I was comparing between it and the Interim_group. A possible example case of the WG uses an Interim or DT which have 6 participants (as example) discussing privately for long, and then make the input to WG list and one participant not agreeing with that DT_input/Interim_input, after that those 6 participants argue on the WG_list that against, could we see that as enough consensus.
My argument can be similar to arguement of author of RFC7282 which is informational for ietf_discussion_leaders and states that :
this document describes a way of thinking about how we make our decisions.
You seem to be arguing that WG chairs should use some other standard to determine WG rough consensus.
no just let them use RFC7282 correctly, and I am arguing about what in the ietf_procedure_practice to make it rough_consensus that those 6 participants decide in DT or Interim_group, and then they decide in WG becoming the total WG direction. Making consensus needs to be through discussions with those opposed and can be not enough as mentioned by 7282.It is already the case that WGs are expected to pay attention to technical objections even if only one person raises the objection.
Attention may not be enough for best practice, also if there was no attention then ietf_procedure asking objected_person to appeal will be not enough/encouraging. Enough consensus is through discussion which should be determined on the WG_list/WG_meeting.It is already the case that chairs try very hard to make it clear that silence is not agreement.
I agree, but it will be good to remind all inputs including interim/DT which are attached to the WG_process.However, there are limits on what chairs can do. If 6 people speak up in favor, with actual reasons for supporting something, and no one speaks up against it with any reasons, then the chairs are likely to conclude that there is WG support even if there are 100 people on the email list.
RFC7282 mention that if 100 agree and 5 disagree then there is NO consensus, and also the 5 agree which are less than 100 against but consensus is agreed those cases are discussed. This 7282 helps IETF_Community_Leaders (DT_leader, WG_Chair, AD, other) to take responsibility for that consensus which is good for all IETF processes.
If you have another alternative to suggest, please state it clearly.
Sorry I thought I was clear, so I read back and seen that maybe you are right maybe not clear, so here to mention.......I agreed with that we should make more effort to correct WG_Interim especially by WG_chairs, so they need continue to follow up and I was comparing mostly about DT_meeting and current_Interim_group_meeting and how it affects WG overall including the WG_consensus. Furthermore, I wanted to point to all Interim_groups that don't announce their minutes as the closed_DT don't announce its meeting minutes.
From RFC2418 all WG meetings (including Interim) should be announced meeting minutes, I have seen in IETF some *Interims* without minutes in 2023 and 2022. So WG_chairs should follow up minutes to be public announced. So they can be tracked by the WG_participants that were not attended.
Also I was not sure about your opinion (also your reply_comment not clear what you think) of this Interim_groups work and how it is better used by the IETF_WG and questioned by the thread?
Best Regards,AB
