Nelson, David wrote:
Good issues are being raised. Certainly there needs to be openness about any substantive changes in drafts during the IESG review process. I'm not enamored of the idea of yet more mailing lists to subscribe to, however. Why can't we rely on the PROTO Shepherds to do the right thing with regard to posting DISCUSS issues to the WG mailing list and collecting WG feedback into the IESG review? After all, we rely on the WG Chairs to do the right thing in declaring consensus on WGLC prior to submitting the documents to the IESG with a request for publication.
WG formation is much like negotiating a contract. It should be done among the principals, not just their representatives.
One of the very big benefits of this will be the creation of a very clear and public record of community interest and perspective.
d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf