draft-phillips-langtags-08, process, sp ecifications,
hartmans-ietf at mit.edu
Fri Jan 7 17:18:50 CET 2005
>>>>> "Peter" == Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft.com> writes:
>> From: Dave Crocker <dhc2 at dcrocker.net> It occurs to me that a
>> Last Call for an independent submission has an
>> requirement to satisfy, namely that the community supports
>> adoption of
Peter> the work.
>> We take a working group as a demonstration of community
Peter> You say "the community", though surely a working group is
Peter> only representative of "a community" or a portion of "the
No. The entire community reviews the chartering of the working group.
It's sort of complicated; community consensus does not appear to be
required by 3418 in order to form a working group, although I would
expect someone to appeal if a WG was formed and there was a rough
consensus against the formation of that group.
I do agree that individual submission last calls have greater latitude
than WG last calls. I think that "Even though the WG supports this,
the IETF does not and thus we will not publish," is a valid outcome of
an IETF-wide last call. IN practice it's harder to get that result than "The IETF does not support this individual submission; we will not publish."
Speaking only to general process and not to the issue at hand.
More information about the Ietf-languages