Subject: [Atoca] ATOCA chairs - IETF process being violated?

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 12:28:01 -0500

ATOCA chairs

I'm personally glad this WG formed.

That said, one WG item was submitted today and I can't seem to find 
in the list archives any call for the WG to approve of any WG level documents.

The WG was announced in this message (from Aug 17th)
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/earlywarning/current/msg00358.html

Martin, as one of two WG chairs, you welcomed all of us to the WG Sept 1st
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/earlywarning/current/msg00359.html

Martin, you're initial non-welcome message (Sept 14th) talked about 
Beijing meeting slots
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/earlywarning/current/msg00360.html
and said this:

"
We're expecting to spend some time on the following drafts:

   draft-rosen-atoca-cap
   draft-rosen-atoca-server-discovery
   draft-schulzrinne-atoca-requirements
"

that meeting agenda thread continued until the first WG item was 
submitted (Sept 24th) without the WG ever having a say in whether or 
not this ID was good or bad to adopt
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/earlywarning/current/msg00377.html

The very next message to this list (Oct 1st) had a rough agenda
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/earlywarning/current/msg00378.html
that didn't even mention draft-ietf-atoca-cap-00.txt

Now on Oct 18th, draft-ietf-atoca-cap-00.txt is submitted - again 
without the proper (or even a mention of) list discussion about 
whether this ID is a good thing for the WG to adopt or not.

Common guys - we can't start the WG by willfully violating IETF WG 
process like this! One of the two of you (chairs) is new, so this 
isn't really a surprise, but one of you authored one of the core IETF 
process documents (RFC 2418), so there's less tolerance here.

This cannot be tolerated and each of these documents need to be 
rescinded (i.e., taken out of the ID repository) until the WG 
approves them. I mean, there hasn't even been a face-to-face meeting 
to have voices say yes or no (hums one way or the other or ever 
thumbs pointed up or down). There's been nothing within this WG to 
justify these two IDs being WG items yet.

There's still time (6.5 hours) to have each resubmitted as individual 
IDs and us discuss them properly in Beijing, and maybe even indicate 
there that these should be put to the ATOCA list for WG 
consideration. Before this happens, these two IDs aren't properly WG items.

James

---

From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 01:42:53 +0200

I also don't remember being asked if the WG wanted to adopt any WG documents.

I suggest you withdraw this one and submit an appropriate consensus call.

Keith 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of James M. Polk
> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 6:28 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Atoca] ATOCA chairs - IETF process being violated?
> 
> ATOCA chairs
> 
> That said, one WG item was submitted today and I can't seem 
> to find in the list archives any call for the WG to approve 
> of any WG level documents.
> 
> Martin, you're initial non-welcome message (Sept 14th) talked 
> about Beijing meeting slots 
> that meeting agenda thread continued until the first WG item 
> was submitted (Sept 24th) without the WG ever having a say in 
> whether or not this ID was good or bad to adopt 
> Now on Oct 18th, draft-ietf-atoca-cap-00.txt is submitted - 
> again without the proper (or even a mention of) list 
> discussion about whether this ID is a good thing for the WG 
> to adopt or not.
> 
> Common guys - we can't start the WG by willfully violating 
> IETF WG process like this! One of the two of you (chairs) is 
> new, so this isn't really a surprise, but one of you authored 
> one of the core IETF process documents (RFC 2418), so there's 
> less tolerance here.
> 
> This cannot be tolerated and each of these documents need to 
> be rescinded (i.e., taken out of the ID repository) until the 
> WG approves them. I mean, there hasn't even been a 
> face-to-face meeting to have voices say yes or no (hums one 
> way or the other or ever thumbs pointed up or down). There's 
> been nothing within this WG to justify these two IDs being WG 
> items yet.
> 
> There's still time (6.5 hours) to have each resubmitted as 
> individual IDs and us discuss them properly in Beijing, and 
> maybe even indicate there that these should be put to the 
> ATOCA list for WG consideration. Before this happens, these 
> two IDs aren't properly WG items.
> 
> James 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> earlywarning mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning
>

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott O. Bradner)
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 19:51:14 -0400 (EDT)

sorry about that - running a bit too quick today

Scott

---

From: "Thomson, Martin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 10:31:56 +0800

Approving these drafts was a little premature.  While we have milestones for work items in our charter, we hadn't formally had the discussion about accepting these as working group items.

For now, let us pretend that these -ietf- versions of the drafts don't exist.  To help us, can we request that the authors of these drafts submit revisions of the individual drafts?

We should have a discussion about the status of these items at our meeting.  If it seems like we do want to adopt these drafts, we'll do a formal 2 week call on the list straight after the meeting.  If not, we'll have to see what we can do to kill off the -ietf- drafts.

Cheers,
Martin (and Scott), ATOCA Chairs

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of James M. Polk
Sent: Tuesday, 19 October 2010 4:28 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Atoca] ATOCA chairs - IETF process being violated?

ATOCA chairs

"

   draft-rosen-atoca-cap

James

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 12:42:47 -0500

WG chairs are allowed to accept IDs past the deadline, if they 
communicate that to the Secretariat exactly (by filename) which late 
submission to post.

This would allow you to have the authors of each ID (reqs and cap) 
resubmit the IDs as individual versions.

just an FYI

James

At 09:31 PM 10/18/2010, Thomson, Martin wrote:
>Approving these drafts was a little premature.  While we have 
>milestones for work items in our charter, we hadn't formally had the 
>discussion about accepting these as working group items.
>
>For now, let us pretend that these -ietf- versions of the drafts 
>don't exist.  To help us, can we request that the authors of these 
>drafts submit revisions of the individual drafts?
>
>We should have a discussion about the status of these items at our 
>meeting.  If it seems like we do want to adopt these drafts, we'll 
>do a formal 2 week call on the list straight after the meeting.  If 
>not, we'll have to see what we can do to kill off the -ietf- drafts.
>
>Cheers,