IETF conflict review for draft-saintandre-jabber-scribe
conflict-review-saintandre-jabber-scribe-00
Yes
(Alvaro Retana)
(Ben Campbell)
No Objection
(Alia Atlas)
(Benoît Claise)
(Brian Haberman)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Jari Arkko)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Terry Manderson)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00 and is now closed.
Ballot question: "Is this the correct conflict review response?"
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2015-07-08)
Unknown
Agree with Barry.
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2015-07-07)
Unknown
While I see no conflict with IETF work here, I also think this would be better published as a wiki page (perhaps on the working group chairs' wiki) than as an RFC. Perhaps we should have an easily found and well publicised ietf-wide wiki for these sorts of things.
Ben Campbell Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2015-07-08)
Unknown
While I agree a wiki would be nice, I do agree with Peter's point that our current setup doesn't make use of wiki's easy as the content can be difficult to locate. It is easier to just refer people to RFCxxxx right now. If we could improve the tools, then a wiki might be a great option.
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2015-07-09)
Unknown
For the IESG - the "why isn't this a wiki?" question comes up often enough with documents like this one and https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-secretaries-good-practices/ that perhaps we should create a process guidance wiki. How long would that take? If we wanted to do something about this, perhaps asking Nevil to check at publication time whether we've created a wiki and inserting a pointer to it would make sense? I agree with publishing this draft as an RFC, because that's what we've got for now, I'm just suggesting that we make it easy for the community to maintain the text on an ongoing basis.
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2015-07-09)
Unknown
I'm not objecting but it is weird to have IETF process oriented stuff (even if only advisory) handled via the ISE. For me, that should only be done in cases where the text is something on which we can't get IETF consensus (e.g. when the text says the IESG are a**holes:-). If the text is something where we really should be able to get it done in the IETF stream, then I think we ought do that. I'd encourage everyone to think about whether this'd be better as an IETF consensus RFC or else, as others have suggested, only as a wiki. But I'm not gonna try block it on that basis.
Terry Manderson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown