Re: [Dcrup] draft-ietf-dcrup-dkim-usage and document shepherds

[Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]>]

On Monday, June 12, 2017 01:57:30 PM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 7:29 AM, Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]>
> 
> wrote:
> > > > I also really don't understand why we have a discussion about if a
> > 
> > draft
> > 
> > > > should be adopted before a WG adopts it if we just get to re-have the
> > 
> > same
> > 
> > > > discussion periodically.
> > > 
> > > You think working groups should not be allowed to revisit their choices?
> > 
> > You think working groups should have a bi-weekly periodic on revisiting
> > choices?
> 
> <chair, though having not talked to my co-chair about this yet>
> 
> We haven't been chartered long enough for that hyperbole to have any
> basis.  I believe this is only the first time such a change has been
> proposed.  If this is going to be the discussion any time someone hints at
> revisiting a choice we've made about a document, this working group is
> going to take a really long time to finish.
> 
> Of course choices can be revisited, but if decisions aren't at all
> 
> > sticky, then there's no way to make progress.
> 
> To be sure, once consensus is reached on something, anyone who wants to
> change it has the burden to justify the change by doing the work to shift
> consensus.  As a bonus, the weight of that burden generally gets heavier
> the more time passes.
> 
> But that's as "sticky" as it gets.  The conversation is allowed to happen,
> and attempts to stifle it are not appropriate.
> 
> </chair>

OK.  Fair enough.

I know I get grumpy sometimes.  I also get over it.

Moving on ...

Scott K