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

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 22/7/20 05:40, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> Michael,
> 
> I think what you are saying (or what we should agree upon) is that different
> WGs run their work differently. It would be a shame, IMHO, to mandate the
> micromanagement of WGs to this level. IOW, sometimes the draft would get
> implicitly adopted, sometimes the chairs would adopted it by fiat, sometimes
> the WG would discuss it before adoption: leave it up to the chairs to decide
> how to run each situation with different DTs in different WGs.

I don't think the intent is to micro-manage, but rather to set 
constraints, and establish a common ground.

Recently I have seen the following as part of adoption calls:

* Folks arguing support/not support with a different understanding of 
what adoption actually means

* Chairs rejecting to do a wg call for adoption as a result of the 
personal opinion about a document

* Documents being adopted without a consensus call on the mailing list 
(and no previous action item in the charter or anything)

...and quite a few others.


Yes, when everything works as expected, it might seem that specifying 
stuff is unnecessary or even undesirable. But in other cases, it may 
become evident why not setting a common-ground, common expectations, and 
constraints within which the wg needs to operate becomes evident.


Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
e-mail: [e-mail] || [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1