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

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

On 23-Jul-20 08:44, Robert Sparks wrote:
> The text in this document should not (really, must not) constrain the 
> group to automatically adopt _anything_.
> 
> I have seen groups set up two teams to refine separate proposals with 
> the intent that the group weigh the results against each other. 
> Automatically adopting the output of both of those teams would have 
> created confusion and increased friction.

True.  I'm thinking that the main point is that a formally appointed
DT (not an informal self-starting DT) can reasonably *expect* their
output to be adopted, but cannot assume it.

fwiw, RFC3248 is a design team output that was published for the
record, but the WG standardised RFC3246 instead. Anything can happen,
and probably will.

   Brian

> 
> RjS
> 
> On 7/21/20 8:58 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 =-
>>
>>
>>
>