Hi Dave,
At 01:43 12-06-2013, Dave Cridland wrote:
I strongly feel that positive statements have
value, as they allow the community to gauge the
level of review and consensus, and I suspect
that human nature means that we get more reviews
if people get to brag about it. I suggest that
if more than one bit of data is required, it's
simply asked for. Given that the text of IETF
Last Call announcements is not governed by any
process RFC that I'm aware of (feel free to
correct), I suggest simply putting a set of
optional questions there. I note this practise
has served the XSF very well. I do not think
this needs an endless bikeshed discussion on
what questions; the IESG can pick what it wants to know.
If, on the other hand, only objections are
sought, then the text (which simply asks for
"comments") also needs changing. And the GenArt,
AppsDir, and SecDir reviews should only be send
when they have objections to publication, of course.
If you feel that the only way to make either
change is to form a working group and publish an
RFC to change something undocumented in the
series, then I think we're stranded in a
bureaucratic quagmire with no chance of escape,
but I'll be happy to send "comments", as requested, nonetheless.
An interesting point in the above is level of
review and consensus. Here's what I know: there
is going to be apathy, there might be attempts by
a group to support a draft or even attempts to
silence critics, there might be someone new to
all this who might be commenting. If it was my
decision to make (and it is not) I would take
those factors and some other points into
consideration in making a determination about a document.
As I have read your reviews I have an approximate
idea of the type of review you would do. I read
the draft and I notice some obvious issues; I
downgrade your statement of support to a tweeter
comment. I read the draft and I notice an
obvious issue; I consider your statement of support as good enough.
I have read the reviews from the IAB Chair. I
read the draft and I notice that it is not
well-written; I downgrade the statement of
support of the IAB Chair to a tweeter comment. I
read the draft and I notice that it is good to
go. However, I don't find any comments about it
except for a statement of support from the IAB
Chair. I don't say that there is
consensus. Note that this is really a personal
decision; someone else might say that there is
consensus. It's not a problem unless the IESG is
affected by the Abilene paradox.
The XSF is likely a group of people who can write
code. The IETF is a bunch of people who might
discuss about content-free comments but won't
comment about the draft. :-) Drawing up a set of
optional questions will generate a bottom-up
discussion and that would be against the values
which the IETF cherishes. :-) There isn't
anything preventing an Area Director or someone
else from asking optional questions during a Last
Call. Optional questions from an IETF
participant might be ignored if such activity
would turn a Last Call into the Tribunal del Santo Oficio de la Inquisición.
If you are doing an AppsDir review, for example, and you state:
The draft is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard.
I presume that you can personally explain the meaning of that sentence.
If you are an individual responding to a Last
Call you can say anything you wish. If your
message is littered with spelling mistakes or it
does not contain any substantive comment, it
won't bear much weight. If your English writing
skills is not that good but your code is good the
message will bear more weight. If your message
is to show your management that you are
participating in the IETF the message will not bear much weight.
It's simple enough. I would send a message if I
believe that it can affect the decision. It's up
to me to know what will influence the content and fate of the draft.
Regards,
-sm