> From: Vernon Schryver <vjs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: The process/WG/BCP/langtags mess... > That's fine, but does suggest some questions: > > - Is the Last Call over? > > - If so, was its result "no supporting consensus"? > > - If the result was "no supporting consensus", will the current document > nevertheless be published as a BCP? > > - If the result was "no supporting consensus", will a revision of > the document be published as a BCP without a new Last Call? > > Last week I saw a comment that seemed to answer first question with Yes. > If the answers to the other questions are not Yes, No, and No, then > as others have said, the IETF has far more serious process problems > than how to account for the expenses of the to be hired help. This is comment is a general one rather than being directed toward the particular case at hand. It seems to me that your comment is making a presumption, as a participant on the IETF list, regarding what the outcome of the question regarding result must be. Perhaps I am wrong, but I would have thought it is the role of the IESG to make that determination, not members of this list; and if that is the case I would certainly think it possible for them to weigh concerns that have been raised against responses provided and reach a conclusion that there has been adequate disposition of the comments raised. Again, I am not saying that in this case I think that is what the IESG will or might or should do; only that in general I would think it is something that they *could* do, in which case the outcome of their decision even when concerns have been raised cannot be assumed a priori. > If outside groups can publish IETF BCPs without the let, leave, or > hindrance of the IETF, then the honest thing to do is to get rid > of all of that tiresome WG stuff. No outside group is doing this. > On the other hand, if the answers are Yes, Yes, No, and No, then > contrary to the other person's request, there is no good reason to > talk about the language tags document here and now. I agree that a yes to the first question -- is the last call closed? -- would appear to be adequate grounds for there to be no further discussion on this list in relation to the I-D in question. Whether there may be grounds for discussing other process-related questions possibly including the area of work to which this I-D pertained is, of course, a separate question. Peter Constable _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf