I led the discussion in the WG Chairs lunch at IETF 78 on this topic. Slides at http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/group/edu/wiki/IETF78# Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of > George, Wes > Sent: 28 November 2012 15:36 > To: John Leslie; Barry Leiba > Cc: IETF discussion list > Subject: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: "IETF work is done on the > mailing lists") > > > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of > > John Leslie > > > > I'm increasingly seeing a "paradigm" where the review happens > > _before_ adoption as a WG draft. After adoption, there's a great lull > > until the deadline for the next IETF week. There tend to be a few, > > seemingly minor, edits for a version to be discussed. The meeting time > > is taken up listing changes, most of which get no discussion. Lather, > > rinse, repeat... > > [WEG] I've seen several discussions recently across WG lists, WG chairs list, etc > about this specific topic, and it's leading me to believe that we do not have > adequate guidance for either WG chairs or participants on when it is generally > appropriate to adopt a draft as a WG document. I see 3 basic variants just among > the WGs that I'm actively involved in: > 1) adopt early because the draft is talking about a subject the WG wants to work > on (may or may not be an official charter milestone), and then refine a relatively > rough draft through several I-D-ietf-[wg]-* revisions before WGLC > 2) adopt after several revisions of I-D-[person]-[wg]-* because there has been > enough discussion to make the chairs believe that the WG has interest or the > draft has evolved into something the WG sees as useful/in charter; Then there > are only minor tweaks in the draft up until WGLC (the above model) > 3) don't adopt the draft until some defined criteria are met (e.g. interoperable > implementations), meaning that much of the real work gets done in the > individual version > > It seems to me that these variants are dependent on the people in the WG, the > workload of the group, the chairs, past precedent, AD preferences, etc. It makes > it difficult on both draft editors and those seeking to follow the discussion for > there to be such a disparity from WG to WG on when to adopt drafts. I'm not > convinced that there is a one-size-fits-all solution here, but it might be nice to > coalesce a little from where we are today. > So I wonder if perhaps we need clearer guidance on what the process is actually > supposed to look like and why. If someone can point to a document that gives > guidance here, then perhaps we all need to be more conscientious about > ensuring that the WGs we participate in are following the available guidance on > the matter. > > Wes George > > This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary > information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to > Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or > entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, > you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action > taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly > prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please > notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy > of this E-mail and any printout.