Brian - I think part of my difficulty in understanding what has transpired is that the process was truly "invisible" and what little written record exists is misleading. I now infer that the initial entry in the minutes of the IESG meeting of 2005-04-14 records that Allison took responsibility for managing the process to reach a decision within the IESG and for writing a response, and that the IESG then had a discussion and approved the final response on 2005-05-26. I understand that this process was an IESG decision and much of the discussion took place on line. But there appears to be no other record about the decision than a few terse entries in the IESG minutes. Following up on your comparison with IETF WGs, WG debates and decisions formally take place on a public mailing list, so there is a record of the process through which the decision was made. In the case of this IESG decision, the only information I have about the decision is the announcement of the decision. The problem for me, then, is that I was surprised by the IESG decision and am trying to understand how the IESG reached its decision. Now I understand that the IESG deliberated for six weeks, from which I infer there was consideration of both technical and procedural issues arising from the initial request. - Ralph On Mon, 2005-06-27 at 17:10 +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Ralph, > > I'm not sure I understand your question. This is the IETF so > we take decisions by on line deliberation inside the IESG > just as much as any WG does, and the minutes or IESG announcements > are the public record. And this decision, and the formulation > of the response to IANA and the announcement, took a number > of weeks. We agreed apart from final wordsmithing in the May 26 > meeting (agenda item 6.2). > > Brian > > Ralph Droms wrote: > > Brian... > > > > On Sun, 2005-06-26 at 17:50 +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > > >>Ralph, > >> > >>Ralph Droms wrote: > >> > >>>I'd like to understand the process through which Dr. Roberts' request > >>>was reviewed. The first reference I can find to Dr. Roberts' request is > >>>in the 2005-04-14 minutes of the IESG > >>>(https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/view_telechat_minute.cgi? > >>>command=view_minute&id=318 see below). According to the rejection > >>>announcement, the IESG reviewed the submission and determined that > >>>"Reviewing this proposal within the IETF as an alternative to the > >>>ongoing work would be a multi-year endeavor. The IESG is pessimistic > >>>that this effort would ever achieve consensus." The minutes refer to > >>>discussion of a "management issue". Was the entire review conducted in > >>>the meeting on 2005-04-14, or was there additional review conducted > >>>prior to that meeting? How, exactly, did the IESG review the submission > >>>and how did the IESG come to its conclusion? > >>> > >>> > >>>- Ralph > >> > >>This took many weeks, considerable email, and several informal > >>discussions before the IESG was sure of its position and able to > >>record a conclusion in the meeting you cite. Since there was no > >>IETF contribution (I-D or email on a public list) this process > >>was indeed invisible. I would have preferred a discussion based > >>around an IETF draft, but we didn't have one. > > > > > >> Brian > > > > > > I don't understand the cause-and-effect: why would the lack of an IETF > > contribution lead to an invisible process? > > > > Dr. Roberts' original request was apparently received by IANA on > > 2005-03-25 and forwarded by IANA to the IESG on 2005-04-07. Did the > > IESG reach its conclusions about the request during its 2005-04-14 > > teleconference or at a later time? It may be that the IESG minutes > > aren't clear... > > > > - Ralph > > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf