> 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.
> 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.
I think the IETF procedures are clear that the WG should authorise all works, not the chairs nor the ADs. However, chairs guide the discussions on the list (which in few times does not happen because we are volunteering), and ADs guide the chairs and direct the WG output. The WG input is only authorised by the participants through rough consensus.
>So, yes, the chairs get to decide how they want to seed the document
development process, and they have a pretty free hand in making that
decision. Your ADs are always there for further guidance if you need
or want it.
development process, and they have a pretty free hand in making that
decision. Your ADs are always there for further guidance if you need
or want it.
AB> I disagree that chairs have such authority on process without checking the WG if there was an objection or not. The ADs are there for the chairs guidance too not only participants. The chairs role is important to encourage/manage participants input time/effort in faivor of the WG charters. However, I agree that chairs MAY take decision on behalf of WG because they want to save time and they know the WG initial opinion by experience (still they need to check if there is any objection).
>But there's no formal process for that, and I think
that's how we want it to be.
that's how we want it to be.
I don't want no formal in a formal organisation, usually unformal process only happen in unformal organisations, so is IETF a formal or non-formal. I beleive we are in a formal so our managers (chairs and ADs) SHOULD follow formal procedures and participants MAY do both.
I read the procedures and this is what I came out with if I am wrong please refer me to where does the procedure mention that WG Chairs have such authority.
AB