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

["Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>]

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 <[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 =-
> 
> 
> 
>