On 01/25/2013 03:27 PM, John C Klensin wrote: > In the context of draft-farrell-ft, the above makes the idea of > WG LC in parallel with IETF LC either irrelevant or bad news. > If the WG Chair (or AD) concludes that a WG LC is needed, then > the procedure should not be invoked. If a WG LC is not needed, > then organizing things so that one is conducted in parallel with > the IETF LC risks having two discussions going on in parallel > with comments made to the WG list not being exposed to the > community (remember the days when IETF LC comments were > routinely sent to the IESG and not to the IETF list?). And, if > the WG does conduct a WG LC, the document can be read as > forbidding use of the FT procedure to condense and set timelines > on the rest of the process (something I'd suggest fixing if we > are going to go ahead with this). That's a fair point and I'd be open to incorporating a change to make that better if we are going ahead with the experiment. I'll add a pointer to this mail to the working copy [1] in a bit. > > All of this points out one of my main concerns. Almost as a > side-effect, the proposal formalizes a number of informal > procedures and mechanisms work pretty well most of the time but, > because they are informal, can be used flexibly without a big > fuss. If we are going to formalize them, we really should be > asking questions about consensus, exception cases, and so on... > and risk another several steps in the direction of trying to > substitute procedures for judgment, responsibility, and > accountability. I disagree that doing an experiment formalises these things. I do agree that more thought would be needed if the experiment turned up something that we did want to make permanent. S. [1] http://down.dsg.cs.tcd.ie/misc/draft-farrell-ft-04.txt