[Gendispatch] Re: [procon] dispatching draft-carpenter-rfc7221bis

[Joel Halpern <[e-mail]>]

Regarding authors supporting their own documents, I think Michael is 
correct that there is confusion.  As a result, I do two contradictory 
things:

1) A a chair when asking for support I make clear I am looking for 
support from those not named as writing the document, and I simply 
discount any support from those named individuals

2) As a document author / editor, unless the chairs explicitly state 
they are not interested in support from the authors / editors, I state 
my support (with reasons).

Yours,

Joel

On 3/27/2025 8:33 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
> S Moonesamy <[e-mail]> wrote:
>      > Hi Michael, Carsten,
>      > At 01:53 AM 26-03-2025, Michael Richardson wrote:
>      >> When it comes to adopting documents, the WG chairs are 100% responsible.
>      >> It's fiat.  THIS PROCESS IS NOT WELL KNOWN.
>      >> Instead, we have a poorly understand (by WG chairs) cargo culting of asking
>      >> people if they support a document.  It does not produce good results, and
>      >> somehoe turns into voting.
>      >> I've even had chairs ask why I didn't +1 my own document.
>      >> (In 2020 several people were surprised that the above was NOT a documented
>      >> process)
>
>      > I agree that the process is poorly understood.  Sometimes, there is a call
>      > for objections to adopting a draft.  That is not one of the considerations
>      > which RFC 7221 (Section 2.2) suggests.
>
> No, but it is a key part of RFC7282 (On Consensus and Humming..)
> So it's a legiimate way for WG chairs to learn about technical objections,
> and understand who is in the rough.
>
>      > I have seen authors "vote" on the adoption of their drafts.  There is an
>      > assumption that the authors of a draft will be in favour of adoption of their
>      > draft.  The authors are free to "vote".  That vote is not supposed to be
>      > counted as an expression of support for adoption.
>
> It's just a silly waste of time; and since the process differs between WGs,
> it's confusing.
>
>      > I vaguely recall reading that a new working Chair was paired with another
>      > working group Chair who has been doing that for a few years.  The rationale
>      > is that the latter will help the former understand the documented process.
>      > Did that happen and did it produce the desired results?
>
> Yes, but what also occurs is that the new chair about undocumented
> processes that the older chair *thought* were BCPs/standards, but actually
> were not.
>
>
> --
> Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
>   -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-                      *I*LIKE*TRAINS*
>
>
>
>