--On Monday, 12 June, 2006 12:02 +0200 Brian E Carpenter <brc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > John, > > John C Klensin wrote: >> >> --On Thursday, 18 May, 2006 17:16 -0400 The IESG >> <iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >>> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter >>> to consider the following document: >>> >>> - 'IETF Process and Operations Documentss ' >>> <draft-alvestrand-ipod-01.txt> as an Experimental RFC >>> >>> This is a proposed process experiment under RFC 3933. >>> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and >>> solicits final comments on this action. Please send any >>> comments to the iesg@xxxxxxxx or ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists >>> by 2006-06-15. >> >> >> Hi. >> I think this idea is generally a good one. It seems to me to >> be quite desirable to bring all IETF procedural materials and >> notes into a single series and to decouple the publication of >> those materials from the RFC Editing process: the documents >> are not archival and should not delay, or be delayed by, >> technical specifications. >> >> I have three concerns: >>... >> (3) The document is written on a model that I would describe >> as "here are the principles, the IESG should sort out the >> details". Personally, I think that is the right model, at >> least as long as the IESG's decisions about details are >> subject to appeal. But some of the members of previous IESGs >> have expressed concerns that making similar decisions would >> add to their workload or that documents were not acceptable >> unless they contained much more specific detail. >> >> To permit the community to evaluate this Last Call, it seems >> to be to be critical to know whether the IESG is willing to >> take on that responsibility. > > It's clear to me that this experiment will only succeed > if it is run in a lightweight manner. By that I mean using > procedures like a formal last call, and an approval process > other > than "silence means consent", only when things are contentious. > I don't see the IESG responsibility being any different from > what happens today when, for example, 1id-guidelines gets > updated, or when an IESG Statement is issued. I agree, modulo a comment that has been made elsewhere: in general, anything that requires Last Call now and formal publication now, such as a significant change in procedures, requires that same level of processing under this model. In other words, this is a way to collect documents together in a coherent way, not a way to permit IESG to make major procedural changes --changes it cannot make today-- on its own initiative. Much as I like the general ideas behind this document, if the above restriction is not clear to all concerned, I'd need to oppose this particular proposal. >> It would also be helpful to know whether >> the IESG will consider these documents, especially the ones >> that define the parameters of the series, to be subject to >> the usual appeal procedures when they are adopted and >> published. > > Recently the IESG has chosen to interpret the right of appeal > broadly, even though the text in RFC 2026 is unclear about > scope. > I don't see how we could refuse to consider an appeal about an > ION, although I'd hope that we could normally resolve issues > without the need for it. I would hope we could normally resolve all issues by informal discussion rather than appeals. History indicates that sometimes we cannot. john _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf