--On Saturday, August 3, 2019 11:56 -0700 Eric Rescorla
<ekr@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I haven't been involved in the IETF as long as you, but in my
> experience the general pattern of "Issues are discussed and
> decided at the meeting and then a mail is sent to the list
> asking for objections" has been common for at least 20 years.
> While it's certainly possible to do this badly (e.g., asking
> for consensus before the minutes are up), as long as the list
> is given sufficient time and context to weigh in, then this
> practice seems to me to be in line with both the letter and
> spirit of 2418 S 3.4.
>
> Each working group will determine the balance of email and
> face-to- face sessions that is appropriate for achieving
> its milestones. Electronic mail permits the widest
> participation; face-to-face meetings often permit better
> focus and therefore can be more efficient for reaching a
> consensus among a core of the working group participants.
> In determining the balance, the WG must ensure that its
> process does not serve to exclude contribution by email-only
> participants. Decisions reached during a face-to-face meeting
> about topics or issues which have not been discussed on the
> mailing list, or are significantly different from
> previously arrived mailing list consensus MUST be reviewed
> on the mailing list.
Ekr,
See Melinda's note, which seems to me to get to the core of the
comment/ concern and suggestion I was trying to make.
However, in the context of your response above, what I'm
concerned about is slipping quietly and in slow, frog-boiling,
increments toward what you describe as doing it badly. And,
fwiw, there is, at least IMO, a significant difference between
"reviewed on the mailing list" in the last sentence you quoted
and some sort of "does anyone object to what was agreed at the
meeting" question, especially one that covers multiple decisions
and issues. If we agree that the latter constitutes doing
things badly and that we shouldn't encourage doing things badly,
then we are probably in complete agreement about the current
situation.
best,
john
