|
On 3/31/20 1:12 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
On 30
Mar 2020, at 23:25, Barry Leiba wrote:
2. We are
concerned that rushing such a process by, for example, posting a
draft now and immediately last-calling it without a normal
period of discussion would call into question the legitimacy of
our consensus process and would set a bad precedent.
Barry, I think the IESG has made an error, specifically on this
point. Last-calling a document for 4 weeks is precisely designed
for the situation where most (if not all) of the community has not
had a chance to comment on it. And in the only specifically
documented variance procedure in the IETF (2026 section 9), this
kind of thing is exactly what it anticipates: The IESG writes up
what it thinks it's heard about what the variance should be, it
immediately puts it out for Last Call, it takes those 4 weeks to
assess the consensus of the IETF and adjusts the document to suit,
and then it publishes. Following that same model has a much better
chance of standing up to questions of legitimacy than the IESG
proposal: collecting opinions with no text to look at, and then in
4 weeks writing some text that the IESG thinks represents the
consensus and calling it approved. That is inviting a great deal
of contention.
You (or I or any number of other people in this discussion) can
write up and post a draft in less than 24 hours. The IESG can
immediately Last Call it. Folks can then discuss the document and
the IESG to make adjustments to it over the next 4 weeks. It can
be acted upon once approved. To do otherwise goes against the
openness of our processes.
Please, IESG, reconsider your decision on this, and quickly. You
can do the right thing in a reasonable amount of time without
trying to do something that is inviting a protracted process
fight.
+1. I was about to raise the same objection, but Pete's
response is more succinct and precise.
Keith
|
