Subject: Re: New discussion of WG documents in the Tao

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 09:46:45 -0700

On 5/26/2010 9:43 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> I will summarize some of the relevant proposed changes later after there is more discussion, but could I request that this thread focus on the "it the Tao" part of the subject? I do not think that the Tao is the right place to be including text on noxious corner cases.

It's worth having the TAO note that there are such things, and provide 
some examples (not to excess, of course, but some). Otherwise it 
presents the IETF in a simplistic light that will cause newbies to be 
even more uncomfortable when such corner cases occur.

Joe

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 09:46:50 -0700

Hi, all,

Might it be worthwhile for the TAO to differentiate between types of 
WGs? I.e.,:

- short term, focused issue (the original idea of a WG)
- those tracking  an ongoing evolution or issue (e.g., TCPM)
- "area" WGs, that are catch-alls for things that don't fit into other 
areas (e.g., INTAREA)
- Area meetings themselves (SAAG) - which aren't WGs, and can't 
technically adopt docs.

I.e., the hurdle for each of these to adopt a doc is different.

Joe

On 5/25/2010 6:22 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
>
> Paul,
>
> Nice stuff but I think it is slightly off from my understanding of the process. My understanding of how a document gets adopted as a WG document is
>
> 1) There needs to be a milestone before it can be adopted. If the milestone needs to be added to the charter, the chair requests this and some AD approves.
>
> 2) The chair(s) need to determine there is WG Consensus to adopt a given individual draft as a WG draft. Often they take a hum to do this and they often end up taking a hum before requesting a milestone. This is fine way to do things but the WG still needs to a milestone and consensus before the chairs approve the submission of the WG draft into the drafts directory.
>
> Your description of who selects people listed on front page of a WG draft seems right in the first paragraph of 5.3 but are this seems to be a bit contradicting in the last paragraph - for example, saying the document editor can invite the participant to become a co-author or co-editor. I think the chairs need to do that along with most the rest of the paragraph.
>
> It might be worth discussing that for the most part WG drafts are named draft-ietf-wgname but mention sometimes things named this way are not WG documents due to various hiccups along the way.
>
> Cullen
>
>
> On May 25, 2010, at 2:56 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>
>> Greetings again. I have revved the Tao of the IETF; see<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hoffman-tao4677bis-08.txt>. This version contains more description of WG documents, particularly in section 5.3, based on what I have seen in various WGs. It would be good to hear comments from WG chairs on this section.
>>
>> --Paul Hoffman, Director
>> --VPN Consortium
>
>
> Cullen Jennings
> For corporate legal information go to:
> http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html
>
>
>

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 08:57:26 -0400

Just checking here.  The tao is just an informational description,
right?  It doesn't have any normative power.  In particular, if someone
wants to change what and when a WG can adopt documents, they need to get
to an IESG statement, BCP or the like.  On the other hand, if we're
summarizing a discussion of when it's a good idea to adopt documents,
sticking that in the tao isfine.  The tao should not be a tool for those
who have an agenda for affecting process change: it should be a
discussion of changes already  effected.

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 15:20:36 -0700

Hi, Sam,

> discussion of changes already  effected.

Agreed, at least on my part. My goal for the TAO to include how things 
actually happen, within the wiggle room of how things are spec'd to 
happen, but not to rededefine those rules.

Joe