Re: [apps-discuss] On "supporting the publication of this document"

[Dave CROCKER <[e-mail]>]

On 5/10/2011 1:51 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
> But getting rid of process abusers is only a secondary goal here. Really my
> point is, I want us all to get in the habit of taking responsibility for
> documents; to not assume that the AD is going to be the final backstop, but
> instead assuming that the AD may be a dope and needs this stuff explained to him
> or her.


Your original line of comment started with the negative of what you aren't 
lokking for.  I think this whole discussion gets much more constructive by 
starting with a statement like the above.  It says what you /are/ looking for, 
and it declares a goal with a broad, basic benefit.

Taking responsibility requires establishing one's involvement.  Within an 
on-going working group discussion, a context exists and a "+1" is an efficient 
tool within that.  (Note that a review tends to start with a factual summary of 
what is being reviews; this establishes that the reviewer has enough 
understanding to offer an opinion.)

For a Last Call, there typically is no such context for most of the folk 
submitting an opinion. Therefore, each person submitting an opinion should 
assume that the first requirement is to establish the basis for their 
involvement, knowledge, interest, or the like in the paper.

No doubt there are a few IETF Well-Known Culprits (WKC) who might respond to one 
person's posting by just adding a +1, and the rest of us will know how to 
interpret it.  But that's a poor rule for general commenting.  (That is, a +1 
for a LC makes sense if you are a WKC and know you are...)

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net