W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org > January to March 2001

RE: Versioning TeleConf Agenda, 2/9/00 (Friday) 12-1pm EST

From: Jim Whitehead <ejw@cse.ucsc.edu>
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 21:40:13 -0800
To: <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>

> Then the IESG will make a final determination
> "in a timely fashion" after the last call period expires,
> whether or not to approve the standards action, and will
> notify the IETF via the mailing list of its decision.
> (No public voting ... it is the IESG that decides, but they
> can ask for outside reviewers if they decide that is appropriate).

In particular, it is my understanding that voting in the IESG is such that
IESG members who have not reviewed the specification generally abstain.
However, it only takes one yes vote, from an IESG member who has reviewed
the specification, to allow the specification to move forward.  Thus, once
the specification finishes IESG last call, the critical path then becomes
the review by at least one of the IESG members. Typically, the IESG member
who reviews a specification is the working group's area director. In theory
the review can go quickly, but in practice this tends to take several months
(this is what Larry Masinter is referring to with his "square of the length
of the spec." rule of thumb).

Once the AD review is complete, there are generally a small number of issues
that must be addressed by the working group before the AD will give it a yes
vote in an IESG meeting.  Feedback from the AD does not typically affect the
core data model or abstractions provided by the protocol, but this is, in
theory, possible.  After the working group addresses these comments from the
AD (and incorporates any other changes that have accumulated during the
wait), and submits a new I-D, the IESG then reviews the document.

- Jim
Received on Friday, 9 February 2001 00:41:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:55:46 UTC