--On Saturday, 19 July, 2008 09:07 -0400 Marshall Eubanks
<tme@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> I currently have several drafts in a state where the IESG,
>> authors, and the WG are talking about the changes needed to
>> approve the document. In one case we have a very long list
>> of RFC Editor notes that appear satisfactory. In theory we
>> could approve the draft with those, but I would like to use
>> RFC Editor notes for minor corrections, and this one is
>> not... so a new draft would be preferred. Yet it cannot be
>> posted at this time. Having the new draft would also make
>> it easier to have a discussion with the WG, because then
>> the usual tools diffs etc would be available.
>>
>
> Wouldn't it be a lot simpler just to give the ADs the ability
> to advance a draft during the block-out period, maybe through
> an email to the Secretariat ?
>
> They, of course, have to know about a draft getting upgraded
> in any of the above situations, this would not require a tool
> change, and of course if this were misused they are the ones
> who would have to face the wrath of the IESG.
At the risk of seeing this as just another variation on a theme,
when the posting cutoff rules were first instituted (and, since
I was involved in the discussion, I think they go back to my
terms on the IESG, which is a very long time ago), it was
clearly understood that an AD could waive the deadline for a
particular document if, in his or her judgment, the advantages
of doing so outweighed the disadvantages. My recollection is
that documents were posted after the deadline on such waivers
several times. I don't think we ever wrote down that there was
an exception mechanism, mostly because it seemed obvious and
possibly because we didn't especially want to encourage a stream
of requests. The assumption of obviousness was conditioned on a
general assumption that any procedural rule that IESG could
specify to make things go more smoothly was a rule that the IESG
(or individual ADs in their own areas) could waive for an
exceptional case in which something else would be more
productive. As Marshall suggests, an AD who abused that [rather
small bit of] discretionary authority would face the wrath of
the IESG (and the wrath of WGs in the area) and an IESG that
abused it would face the wrath of the community for being
arbitrary.
But that, IMO perfectly sensible, combination of formal posting
cutoffs (whether to protect the Secretariat or to make sure
documents were available when they needed to be) with informal
provision for waivers, gradually morphed into a firm,
chiseled-in-stone rule with no exceptions and that no one could
really question, even a sitting AD trying to move a document
forward. I suggest that has become a pattern, but let me focus
on this particular case.
So, Jari, let me make a suggestion. Get the relevant draft
together, send it to the Secretariat, and ask (or tell) them to
manually post it and to do so RSN. If they won't do it, you,
the IESG, and Ray need to have a discussion, but I can't imagine
that being necessary. Especially because it has been some years
since this sort of exception was made, send a note to the WG,
copying the IETF list, indicating that you decided to apply good
sense and get the document posted in order to facilitate
discussions in Dublin and to avoid unnecessary delay in getting
a document wrapped up and published on which substantial
consensus already existed.
I want to stress that I'm not recommending modifying the
non-document that defines the posting deadlines to try to
enumerate the exception cases, much less building a lot of extra
facilities into a future version of the posting tool. I'm
suggesting that you have the authority (and, actually, the
responsibility) to get the document posted simply by the
application and assertion of good sense and that nothing more is
either necessary or desirable.
I imagine the WG would applaud. Many of us, especially those
who have been increasingly concerned that the formation and
application of rules is replacing the application of good sense,
would also applaud. I don't see any downsides other than
breaching the sanctity of The Rules, and I don't believe we
actually have Sacred Rules around here.
This situation gives you an opportunity to show the community
that the discretion given to ADs and the IESG --discretion that
is latent in our fundamental procedures-- can actually be used
to expedite moving documents forward efficiently, not just to
slow them down with quibbles, procedural rituals, nit-picking,
and personal preferences. The ability to use discretion that
way is, IMO, the strongest argument for retaining that
discretion, rather than having the IESG spend time to fight off
real or perceived community efforts to restrict or abolish it
because of a perception that it is regularly misused.
Go for it!
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf