> Does the community want us to push back on those situations?
I think we follow the IETF RFCs or our community amend/change the procedure related RFCs to be practical. We may need historical RFCs to understand why such change (the change in opinion/practices as community opinion is changing).
> 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?
I think the community cannot answer that question.
Overall, could we depend on asking the IETF community about something that is against the IETF procedure and then we claim that we are following the community. I thought we are following our approved documents or RFCs its the communities opinion as well. If it is very easy to ask question to the community to make a procedure then why we need RFCs? I thought that sometimes IETF managers ask the community questions to sense the rough consensus for purposes of guidance, not for the purpose of processing the IETF's work flow.
I once written an RFC to update 2119 but some participants don't want that, but still I don't beleive that I need to ask them nor the community. I will go through procedure because I feel I have right to do so. However, once I asked community for feedback on a draft I will write, but participants argued why do I ask while still did not write. I do ask only to sense the community, but still have the right to decide my volunteering work/input.
My question is when do we ask community (from participant level, or from managerial level) and when we produce an RFC (which purpose)?
Thanking you,
AB