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

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

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.

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.

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?

>     > I generally knee-jerk when someone argues for replacing a process when
>     > the real problem is that the process isn't even used (or known!) in the
>     > first place.
>
>We are very much in agreement here.

Yes.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy