Hi Rob,
On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 11:18 AM Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton=40cisco.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I want to pick up on suggestions by Christian and Keith, because I think that they are both potentially good ideas, and perhaps we should raise an issue in the Datatracker to consider whether implementing these might be feasible (if there is wider interest).
(1) I think that it would be helpful to have a mailing list where notification of *all* WG adoption calls are made.
(2) I think that it would be helpful to have a separate mailing list where notification of *all* WG last calls are made.
(3) The Datatracker already allows participants to track individual drafts but allowing participants to also track when specific WG adoption/last-call's also happen, without necessarily having to follow all of the WG email, may also be interesting and useful functionality. Even if it just acts a reminder to go any catchup on some WG email threads.
I agree with that but I think there is a need to take permission from the WG to encourage more efforts and availability.
IMHO, the WG adoption and WGLC should have a real discussion at least one f2f_meeting with consensus, before any announcements. I don't think it is right (i.e. even if the IETF procedure allows that) that some WG chair or AD make adoption to draft quickly without passing it within a f2f_meeting.
WG adoption is the responsibility of the WG not the responsibility of AD or chair, because the ones agreeing to adopt MUST follow up and review and make sure delivered on time/schedule. The AD and chair MUST not allow adoption LC consensus with low efforts of WG_review, any participant supported adoption will be responsible for broad review (many support then don't make any effort to review broadly). On the other hand the WGLC is important for all participants to have a chance of review if they see few issues to address.
In short, I think that it is a recurring theme on how to get wider feedback (outside of the just the WG participants) earlier in the standards process where it can be more easily and effectively considered, and perhaps these small enhancements could help?
IMO, getting wider feedback is important to be facilitated, planned and scheduled by the WG chair, while considering delay_factors mentioned in RFC8693. Therefore, discussing the schedule for adoptions and WGLC are within the priorities of any wg_chair within all f2f_meetings (also updating WG milestones which includes LC dates per adopted_work), then both needs to be datatracker_announced as you mentioned above. Any WG_draft needs at least 5 participants (i.e. includes authors and at least two non_authors) to discuss and review/follow_up.
Overall, I seen some WG chair always ask before adopting within f2f_meeting of how many are interested to review this work? and that question is the most important one to help the progress, but maybe we need to make them within the acknowledgement section per wg_draft, so they will be encouraged to push for WG progress.
AB
