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

I agree with Joel. So we might jump two ways...

1. Simply remove the text about the DT (that is, the text I quoted)
2. Replace the quoted text with something like...
   A working group may set up a design team to solve a specific
   problem, and the design team may produce Internet-Drafts.
   The standing and operation of design teams is described in
   [RFC2418], and the drafts that they produce are candidates
   For adoption as working group drafts subject to the same
   Considerations as any other draft.

Ciao,
Adrian
-----Original Message-----
From: Gendispatch <gendispatch-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Joel M.
Halpern
Sent: 22 July 2020 05:18
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>; Michael Richardson
<mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>; gendispatch@ietf.org;
draft-carpenter-gendispatch-draft-adoption@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] Thoughts on
draft-carpenter-gendispatch-draft-adoption

Personally, I like the text in 2418 about design teams.

Yours,
Joel

On 7/21/2020 11:35 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Let's stipulate that this paragraph of the draft needs to be rewritten.
> What does it need to say beyond what is said in RFC2418 (quoted in
> my previous message)?
> 
> Regards
>     Brian Carpenter
> 
> On 22-Jul-20 14:15, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>> I strongly disagree with the text below about a WG automatically
>> adopting a DT result.
>> The DT is not the WG.  It is not acceptable, in my view, for the DT
>> product to be automatically adopted.  In the two current cases I am
>> involved with, it would be very bad, as it is clear that the purpose of
>> the design team is to create a proposal which the WG can then review to
>> see if it (the WG) agrees that it is a good starting point.  (And yes,
>> both DTs are chair-appointed DTs.)
>>
>> Yours,
>> Joel
>>
>> On 7/21/2020 9:58 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
>>>
>>> Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> 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   [
>>> ]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on
rails    [
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
>>>    -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>

-- 
Gendispatch mailing list
Gendispatch@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch