Responses to Cullen below, but this is getting to the point where unless someone else who likes the idea wants to join the discussion, I'm going to conclude that we're collectively either unwilling or unable to consider 3933 experiments and regard this one as dead, which maybe means 3933 is dead-ish too, I dunno. (And before someone asks: no, I don't conclude that its just a problem with this particular experiment, and yes, I might be wrong there:-) On 01/29/2013 05:06 AM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) wrote: > > My read of this draft is that it eliminates the need for rough consensus at both the WG and IETF level. Basically the WG chair can just decide and even if the WG disagrees with the chair. If the WG does not have consensus in WGLC that they they do want to publish the draft, it still gets published. I realize from the email list discussions this may not be what the author of the draft intended but it is how I read this draft. Right, that is not the intent. I also don't think this experiment would have that effect, but neither of us can prove either thing. I'll note yet again that this experiment would only affect a few drafts where WG chairs have chosen to try it out, and only for a year, so I fully disagree that this "eliminates the need for rough consensus" at all and consider that as a fairly whopping overstatement that assumes that all drafts must follow this fast-track process and assumes that the worst thing happens as a result. > Because of this, I am against approving this and also believe it would need to be BCP not experimental as it changes the fundamental process to approve PS drafts. If you've read 3933 then I don't get how you can say that - 3933 calls for this draft to be last called for experimental. > The rest of this draft, the part about overlapping, is already allowed by the process today as the draft points out. The WGLC is not required at all, the AD processing and IETF LC can overlap. However, I think that the AD should do their processing before they LC the draft because that means they check it is ready before wasting the IESG and everyone else's time revving a document. AD processing can often be done in a few hours or less if the draft is ready. Generally, WGLC avoids late surprises which take more time in the long run but all of this is a general guideline and there are cases where it make sense to overlap all this and put it through. Thus I think it is good that the current process allows this to all be overlapped at the chair and AD discretion. That seems to contradict your first paragraph where you seem to say that we do need a WGLC so I'm not getting how those can go together. > I encourage the AD & Chairs to overlap where they think it will 1) is appropriate 2) will speed things up and 3) the speed up actually helps the internet or some groups of users in a meaningful way. I'm certainly not against some chairs, ADs, etc trying to put a draft throughout quickly that they think is ready (running code or not) but I don't see the need for this change to the process. Again, its not a process change. Its meant as a process experiment. That means that after a year, things go back to where they were, and we evaluate whether or not there's anything that ought become a process change. > I also have a question for the each IESG member that I think is very relevant - Do all of you agree to only put discussed that meet the "Discuss Criteria" this draft refers too? I really hope you do. If you don't that raises even more issues for how this draft changes the process. There's an IESG statement [1] that says that and that does get brought up when one AD thinks another's DISCUSS doesn't meet the criteria. That doesn't happen on every call, but maybe every month or two, and the DISCUSSing ADs do afaics take that seriously. Authors and chairs ought to feel free to say if they think the DISCUSS doesn't fit [1] IMO, (not many do, mostly former ADs funnily enough;-) so I don't think other IESG members need to directly respond here. Cheers, S. [1] https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > Cullen > > > > > On Jan 11, 2013, at 8:14 AM, The IESG <iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider >> the following document: >> - 'A Fast-Track way to RFC with Running Code' >> <draft-farrell-ft-03.txt> as Experimental RFC >> >> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits >> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the >> ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2013-02-08. Exceptionally, comments may be >> sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the >> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. >> >> Abstract >> >> This memo describes an optional, fast-track way to progress a working >> group document to IESG review. It is provided as a process >> experiment as defined in RFC 3933 for use when working group chairs >> believe that there is running code that implements a working group >> Internet-Draft. The motivation is to have the IETF process >> explicitly consider running code, consistent with the IETF's overall >> philosophy of running code and rough consensus. >> >> In this process all of working group last call, IETF last call, and >> Area Director review are carried out in the same two week period. >> Only comments that meet IESG Discuss criteria need to be addressed >> during this stage, and authors are required to make any changes >> within two weeks. >> >> This experiment will run for one year. >> >> >> The file can be obtained via >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-farrell-ft/ >> >> IESG discussion can be tracked via >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-farrell-ft/ballot/ >> >> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. >