Ed,
I very much appreciate the clarification. And, yes, I was
relying on my impression of what someone else reported on the
list, not on anything I heard directly from you.
Of course, that does not make me any happier with the
relationship between what I thought were commitments to have
tools, or a plan for using tools, in place, right after your
announcement appeared (originally committed for not later than
February 15, but posted on the 12th as you note) and Ray's note
today indicating "next week".
regards,
john
--On Friday, February 20, 2009 17:22 -0500 Ed Juskevicius
<edj.etc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> John, this is to respond to one of your points, below:
>
>> As far as the "where does it go" question, the answer may be
>> clear to you, but it apparently was not clear to the Trustee
>> Chair (and poster of the announcement) who, according to
>> comments on the XML2RFC list, apparently indicated that it
>> would be ok to put it at the end.
>
> For the record, I received a question on January 23rd about
> whether it might be better to move all of the copyright and
> associated boilerplate text required on Contributions from the
> first page, to the back of every document. The basis of the
> question was that the length of the legal statements needed on
> documents was growing, and it might not all fit neatly at the
> front.
>
> I replied on the same day. I thanked the sender for the
> question, and took an action to discuss this with the
> Trustees. Please note that I did not post this on the XML2RFC
> list, so you may be the victim of "here-say" in this case.
> Many things have transpired since January 23rd. One is that I
> failed to explicitly close the loop with the person who asked
> me if the legal text might be moved to back matter.
>
> We have had four revisions to the "Legal Provisions" policy
> since the first call for community comments was posted on
> January 6th. Two versions of the draft were posted before
> January 23rd, two more were posted afterwards, and then the
> last (fifth) revision is the one that was approved on February
> 12th, and made Effective as of February 15th. The guidance
> with respect to where legal text in Contributions is to appear
> was consistent in all of these drafts. Legal text is to
> appear in the front matter of Contributions.
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Ed Juskevicius
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of John C Klensin
> Sent: February 20, 2009 4:07 PM
> To: Ray Pelletier
> Cc: Trustees; wgchairs@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx; iab@xxxxxxx;
> iesg@xxxxxxxx; rfc-editor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: IASA irresponsibility? (was: Re: [IAB] [Trustees]
> LastCall for Comments: Proposed work-around to the Pre-5378
> Problem)
>
> Ray,
>
> The expectation in that January discussion was that the
> Trustees and IAOC were going to be proactive about this and
> take responsibility to make sure things got done. I don't
> consider your "notifying the volunteers" and asking for a
> schedule to be consistent with that. They are, after all,
> volunteers.
>
> Indeed, if the IASA were taking this seriously, I would have
> expected that you would approach the various maintenance groups
> and said "look, we know that text is going to need to go in,
> and go into this place, we just aren't sure about the text yet,
> obtained the source code and patching instructions, and then
> arranged for either the Secretariat or someone on a short-term
> contract to be on standby to get those changes made.
>
> Perhaps I'm the only one in the community who feels that way,
> but I'd be a little surprised.
>
> As far as the "where does it go" question, the answer may be
> clear to you, but it apparently was not clear to the Trustee
> Chair (and poster of the announcement) who, according to
> comments on the XML2RFC list, apparently indicated that it
> would be ok to put it at the end.
>
> I hope that there is real testing going on to verify that the
> none of the relevant servers and connections will fail when the
> load hits. That is "real testing", and additional
> configurations if needed, not your sending out a note
> indicating that people should be aware of the risk.
>
> Please recall that the supposed purpose of the IASA and its
> current organizational model was to protect the IAB, IESG, and
> the community from having to deal with these sorts of
> administrative problems, and even more to protect against
> depending on mad scrambles by volunteers to get things done in
> order to prevent administrative meltdowns. If this is an
> example, I don't think that is working out very well but,
> again, maybe I'm the only member of the community who feels
> that way.
>
> john
>
>
> --On Friday, February 20, 2009 15:46 -0500 Ray Pelletier
> <rpelletier@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Feb 20, 2009, at 3:20 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
>> ...
>>> So the announcement was made and, despite those commitments,
>>> the ducks obviously were not lined up, the tools were not
>>> ready, and we still can't, in practice, post drafts that need
>>> the workaround text.
>>
>> So, the Trustees went through a process of community review of
>> the changes to the TLP
>> posted on 6 January that resulted in some good suggestions
>> that led to iterations and
>> posting of changes on 22 Jan, 5 Feb, 9 Feb and finally 12 Feb.
>> They even caught where
>> a change was unintentionally made.
>>
>> On 11 Feb I notified the 5 volunteers maintaining the tools
>> and templates that the Trustees
>> were voting on what I expected to be the last set of changes;
>> advised them of the changes and asked if they
>> could have the changes completed in a few days, e.g, 14 Feb.
>> I asked for estimated delivery dates.
>> Not all were able to get the changes made. And as I said
>> above I am uncertain as to the
>> final tools being completed, but anticipated next week.
>>
>>> Even if we could cut and paste the text in, we
>>> have no statements about where it goes or decisions/opinions
>>> from Counsel as to whether it can be dropped into a random
>>> place in the document or needs to be next to the front-matter
>>> copyright statements.
>>
>> Section 6b of the Policy says: The following text must be
>> included on the first page of each IETF Document,
>> so I am not sure what the controversy is about.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And, today, you respond, not to that January discussion or
>>> the associated commitments, but to a note posted last
>>> Friday... one that it took you a week to get around to
>>> responding to when the commitments indicated that we've have
>>> answers contemporary with the announcement of the new text.
>>
>> It has taken from last Friday to the other day to ascertain
>> where the volunteers
>> stood in the process of updating those tools and templates.
>>
>> Ray
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> For all of the reasons cited in the January discussion, this
>>> has gone far enough. Independent of promises about what
>>> might get done next week, I want to know --and I think the
>>> community is entitled to know -- who is accountable.
>>>
>>>
>>> john
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf