Mmmmm My take is that by the time we get to last call, we may be trying to do - are IMHO in the case of the I-D that kicked this off - things that were better done earlier. I can track I-Ds courtesy of the IETF mauling list (whoops Freudian slip:-) and can take it upon myself to read them but may still have no idea where - if anywhere - a discussion is taking place by whom and I may be prevented from taking part in that discussion anyway; and for me that is the lack of openness that is at the heart of the problem I believe any individual submission should have a publicly identified, publicly accessible mailing list, perhaps listed in the I-D announcement, so that we can raise issues, hopefully resolve them, before last call. Then a default yes could make sense. Tom Petch ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ted Hardie" <hardie@xxxxxxxxxxxx> To: "Dave Crocker" <dcrocker@xxxxxxxx>; "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 7:06 PM Subject: Re: individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no. > At 9:00 AM -0800 1/10/05, Dave Crocker wrote: > > > >The way to make it obvious that there is serious community support > >for adopting an individual submission is to require that the support > >be demonstrated ON THE RECORD. > > > >d/ > > And the point I'm trying to make is that there are multiple records. > When we have > a mailing list like "ietf-types" or "ietf-languages" where there is a long term > community of interest around a specific issue, should a discussion there > be taken into account when assessing an individual submission? I think > the answer is "it depends" and certainly may be "yes". It should not over-ride > other discussion or be given extraordinary weight, but I do think that the > evidence there of interest, support, and consideration of issues raised should > be taken into account. That's why I believe saying "default yes" or > "default no" > at Last Call is too black and white. > > I suggest that we try to include pointers to these discussions in > the Last Call text, so that the community has the transparency it needs > to assess these previous discussions. That will require a change in > behavior, though, as I've been told by several senior folk that they > don't read the Last Call additional text at all if the draft name alone > convinces them they need to read the document; this was in the context > of the considerable additional explanatory text included with the > langtags "New Last Call". Other suggestions on how to highlight this > to the community reviewing a document at Last Call are more than > welcome. > regards, > Ted Hardie > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf