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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

fwiw, this co-author partly agrees with you. I think it's fair to say
that a formally designated design team would be expected to produce
a WG draft but I think the text you quote goes too far.

Just to quote the relevant bit of RFC2418 (a.k.a. BCP25):
"Design teams may range from an informal chat
 between people in a hallway to a formal set of expert volunteers that
 the WG chair or AD appoints to attack a controversial problem.  The
 output of a design team is always subject to approval, rejection or
 modification by the WG as a whole."

So we need to tune the text you quoted to be compatible with that.

Regards
   Brian

On 22-Jul-20 10:47, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> 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/
> 
> 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. 
> 
> While it is true that the WG can rewrite all of the document once adopted,
> it must be understood that there is a certain stickiness to fundamental
> ideas that are contained in adopted documents (the details may be changed,
> but the main thrust is much harder to change).
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Thanks,
> Adrian
> 
>