On 11/28/2012 12:15 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 27/11/2012 18:00, Barry Leiba wrote:
...
So here's my question:
Does the community want us to push back on those situations? Does the
community believe that the real IETF work is done on the mailing
lists, and not in the face-to-face meetings, to the extent that the
community would want the IESG to refuse to publish documents whose
process went as I've described above, on the basis that IETF process
was not properly followed?
In general, yes please, with room for special cases as John suggested.
At the same time I would like this part of RFC 2418 to be applied:
" All working group sessions (including those held outside of the IETF
meetings) shall be reported by making minutes available. These
minutes should include the agenda for the session, an account of the
discussion including any decisions made, and a list of attendees."
The list of attendees is now taken care of by the scanned blue sheets,
but the barely literate "he said, she said" minutes from most WGs
are pretty much useless. For people attempting to participate only
via the mailing list this is a problem.
Let's have more minutes like these:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/minutes/minutes-85-opsawg
Brian
Brian - does this include conversations between principals of a WG
effort who are conversing about genesis in that WG outside of the IETF
mailing list - i.e. what happens to conversations inside a development
team ? How is that genesis and creative power harnessed for inclusion
into the IETF process?
Todd
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2793 / Virus Database: 2629/5921 - Release Date: 11/26/12
--
Regards TSG
"Ex-Cruce-Leo"
//Confidential Mailing - Please destroy this if you are not the intended recipient.