Subject: Re: The process/WG/BCP/langtags mess...

From: "Peter Constable" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 15:44:50 -0800

> From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>

> >           .... In fact we feel that we've been very considerate
> > and open in the development of this draft in the language tagging
> > community and continue to be open to comments and criticism, no
> > matter the source.
> 
> Based on what I have seen in this mailing list, I disagree.

I'd be curious to know what has led to the impression that the authors
have not been open to comments or criticism. 

> He is basically saying "You must publish our
> BCP because we followed all of the steps as we understood them and the
> default result of that is surely to publish."

I am unable to see how you derive that from his message. Rather, he
appears to be saying, if there is not enough consensus for acceptance of
this draft, then surely we should be able to find a way for stakeholders
to continue work together toward a draft that does achieve consensus.

Peter Constable

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: "Peter Constable" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 15:58:59 -0800

> Subject: Re: The process/WG/BCP/langtags mess...

> That's fine, but does suggest some questions:
> 
>  - Is the Last Call over?
> 
>  - If so, was its result "no supporting consensus"?
> 
>  - If the result was "no supporting consensus", will the current
document
>      nevertheless be published as a BCP?
> 
>  - If the result was "no supporting consensus", will a revision of
>     the document be published as a BCP without a new Last Call?
> 
> Last week I saw a comment that seemed to answer first question with
Yes.
> If the answers to the other questions are not Yes, No, and No, then
> as others have said, the IETF has far more serious process problems
> than how to account for the expenses of the to be hired help.

This is comment is a general one rather than being directed toward the
particular case at hand. It seems to me that your comment is making a
presumption, as a participant on the IETF list, regarding what the
outcome of the question regarding result must be. Perhaps I am wrong,
but I would have thought it is the role of the IESG to make that
determination, not members of this list; and if that is the case I would
certainly think it possible for them to weigh concerns that have been
raised against responses provided and reach a conclusion that there has
been adequate disposition of the comments raised. Again, I am not saying
that in this case I think that is what the IESG will or might or should
do; only that in general I would think it is something that they *could*
do, in which case the outcome of their decision even when concerns have
been raised cannot be assumed a priori.

> If outside groups can publish IETF BCPs without the let, leave, or
> hindrance of the IETF, then the honest thing to do is to get rid
> of all of that tiresome WG stuff.

No outside group is doing this.

> On the other hand, if the answers are Yes, Yes, No, and No, then
> contrary to the other person's request, there is no good reason to
> talk about the language tags document here and now.

I agree that a yes to the first question -- is the last call closed? --
would appear to be adequate grounds for there to be no further
discussion on this list in relation to the I-D in question. Whether
there may be grounds for discussing other process-related questions
possibly including the area of work to which this I-D pertained is, of
course, a separate question.

Peter Constable