Hi Adrian, John,
At 03:25 10-08-2014, Adrian Farrel wrote:
You may note what you like, but please don't try to call consensus on this
process.
From
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-secretaries-good-practices/history/
"Changed consensus to No from Unknown"
The note is from information is in the datatracker.
I am the responsible AD for that stage of the process and I note
that while the
last call period has expired, the discussion of the last call
comments is still
slowly) on-going and making any attempt at a consensus call would be
premature.
I was not making at attempt at a consensus call. It would be
inappropriate of me to do so on this draft.
I suppose you are hoping for this list to provide "some input". Fair
enough, but
why don't you start the ball rolling by giving *your* opinions and
the reasoning
you have used to reach your conclusions?
I'll comment about (a) and (b). If I recall correctly I did the
determination of consensus in cases (a) and (b). I assumed that the
Area Director or the WG Chair would have stepped in if that was a
problem. There was an interesting comment from Dave about consensus
and the comment from Robert Sparks. If I do a strict reading of RFC
2418 the answers to (a) and (b) are no as that responsibility is
clearly described.
In a non-IETF venue I once described consensus as a decision which
anyone in the room would reach if he or she was making the
decision. If the WG Chairs retains responsibility, (a) does not look
like a problem. (b) could be a problem (I am taking our conversation
into consideration).
As stated in RFC 2026, one of the goals of the Standards Process is
"openness and fairness". I read that as meaning that the work is
done in public. RFC 2026 discusses about IESG Review and Approval
and provides the following definition: "A public comment period used
to gage the level of consensus about the reasonableness of a proposed
standards action" for Last-Call. There is the:
"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 at ietf.org mailing lists"
which describes the comment period and where comments are to be
sent. According to the definition the level of consensus is
determined based on those comments.
I am responding to John in here to try and keep my message count low.
At 04:18 10-08-2014, John Leslie wrote:
I believe the Last Call process gets quite confused when there is
no prompt response. It should be _somebody's_ responsibility to map
out the rest of the process and estimate how long it will take.
Ok.
This phrase is unfortunate, IMHO: It suggests that the "Last Call
Period" marks the end of something.
It does _not_ mark the end of comments!
IMHO, it marks the _desired_ date for comments to be received, so
that appropriates responses can be scheduled.
Yes.
SM thinks differently than many of us... But he always raises good
questions.
Thanks.
Adrian here is trying to get the ball rolling without seeming to
pre-judge the issues. But were he to _demand_ that SM start this
ball rolling would have been inappropriate, IMHO.
I actually thought about starting the ball rolling before posting my
message. The reason I did not do that is to be open to opinions
before forming an opinion. My comments (see above) are not
well-formed. I would have to say yes if I was asked whether it is my
opinion to keeps things easy.
So I'll offer to "start the ball rolling" with my opinions ...
(a) IMHO it is not appropriate for a WGC to delegate calling consensus;
(b) see (a);
I do not disagree with the above.
(c) the deterimation of IETF Consensus is not "based on" public review;
but is always subject to appeal.
I avoided broaching the subject of "appeal" in my comments as
response to (s) would be (more) complicated.
It would help, IMHO, for Adrian to explain what parts of the Last
Call process remain and give _some_ estimate of when they might
complete. There is really no reason he shouldn't do this -- except
that it _seems_ unusual to actually try to manage the remainder of
the Last Call process.
I see entirely too many cases where the remainder of the Last Call
process drags on too long.
I was not interested in the Last Call for that draft. I took a point
from the review as it might provide the reader with some context for
the questions. I'll skip commenting about the above two paragraphs
unless someone asks as it would steer me away from the three questions.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy