Subject: Re: Quorum policies

From: "Bernard Aboba" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 23:59:46 -0800

David Kessens said:

"I think Bernard's mail probably tried to say the same thing.

Bert & me have been emphasizing to our wg chairs more and more that it
is a good idea to adopt a policy that requires a minimum number of
reviews before working group adoption and the same thing before a
document gets send to the IESG."

[BA] I think it makes sense to require this at both the end *and* the
beginning. 

One question is who the early reviews are done by: external or internal
parties. 

For example, one can do a deployment review (e.g. ask operators), a
potential 

implementation review (e.g. ask vendors), or focus only on review internal 

to the WG.  

Also, there is the question of what the purpose of the late reviews are. 

Is it merely to ensure proper review by the WG?  Or is it to weed out

documents that should not be on the standards track?  If it is the former

one might delay the document but not kill it.  If it is the latter, then 

documents that fail might be downgraded or dropped. 

David Kessens also said: 

"We don't have an exact policy, we leave it to the individual working
group chairs to implement this idea in the context of the particular
working group that they are running (e.g. a big working group can
probably have stricter requirements than a working group that is
smaller)."

[BA] While the particulars of the policy might vary according to the WG

circumstances, it seems odd for the *objective* to vary.  In other words,

it is one thing to say that in one WG 3 reviews are needed, in another

WG 5 are required;  it is another thing for one WG to adopt the goal of

obtaining more review, and another one to use the mechanism to weed

out documents with insufficient support.  

Finally, David Kessens said: 

"Personally, I believe it could be useful to adapt a somewhat more
universal policy in IETF regarding this matter. However, I am also
very wary of more process and rules so I believe it should be more
something along the lines like 'good management guidelines' as opposed
to hard rules."

[BA] Flexibility is helpful in allowing adaptation to circumstances.

However, it would seem reasonable to have a universal policy, if only

to articulate what the purpose of the process is and provide some guidance

as to how it should be applied.