Re: [Gendispatch] Thoughts on draft-carpenter-gendispatch-draft-adoption

[Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>]

Michael,

I think what you are saying (or what we should agree upon) is that different
WGs run their work differently. It would be a shame, IMHO, to mandate the
micromanagement of WGs to this level. IOW, sometimes the draft would get
implicitly adopted, sometimes the chairs would adopted it by fiat, sometimes
the WG would discuss it before adoption: leave it up to the chairs to decide
how to run each situation with different DTs in different WGs.

Making it clear to the chairs and participants what the options are is
helpful to smooth and flexible operation - this is what we were trying to do
with RFC 7221. Making tight micro-rules constrains "doing the right thing". 

Best,
Adrian

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Richardson <[e-mail]> 
Sent: 22 July 2020 02:58
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]
Subject: Re: Thoughts on draft-carpenter-gendispatch-draft-adoption


Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]> wrote:
    > In this draft you have (section 3)...

    > A WG that decides to create a design team to solve a
    > problem has implicitely agreed to adopt the result.  To not adopt the
    > result is to say that the results of the WG mandated design team does
    > not deserve first class agenda time.  Such a design team would have
    > been created, for instance, when a WG can not decide between two
    > competing individual drafts and decides to merge them.

    > s/implicitely/implicitly/
    > s/can not/cannot/

(fixed in my copy)

    > But I strongly disagree with this statement. I think that the DT is
(very)
    > often chartered to come up with a draft for the WG to consider
adopting. If,
    > however, as is somewhat common, the DT goes a little wild and produces
a
    > document that the DT likes but the WG finds unacceptable, then the
document
    > should not be adopted.

I guess I disagree about the mechanicals of the process.
I really think that the DT should be charged with uploading it's work as
draft-ietf-foobar-00.txt
If the WG hates the result, then the DT can be fired and a new one created.

Adoption is not endorsement.

    > I would go as far as to say that sometimes there is an expectation
that the
    > output of a DT will be presented to a WG as a done decision that the
WG must
    > accept because "the WG chartered the DT". But a DT is "just a group of
    > people working together on a draft," and the fact that the WG
chartered a DT
    > merely means that the WG helped form the group of people.

I agree totally, but the WG created the design team.
If we do agenda time correctly, then the DT might get none.

    > The sentence about the "first class agenda time" also seems wrong.
Yes, the
    > output of the DT deserves agenda time, but if the use of that time
reveals
    > that the result is not up to scratch, that is good use of time and the
draft
    > should not be adopted.

If it deserved agenda time, then adopt it.

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks
[
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect
[
]     [e-mail]  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails
[




--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-