[Gendispatch] Re: Derivative Works: draft-sayre-gendispatc h-derivative-01

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Simon,
At 10:45 PM 14-07-2026, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>I've seen (and been guilty of) document feedback being ignored because
>it wasn't systematically tracked.

I've seen it happening before.

>It mostly comes down to author diligence, which seems weak if we claim
>to conduct an open transparent standardization process.
>
>I would support IETF introducing systematic public issue tracking for
>(WG)LC comments.

Software for issue tracking has been publicly available since a long 
time (it's mentioned below)

>Why?
>
>I am guessing the primary reason we don't track concerns in any
>systematic way is because WG Chairs find this too much work.
>
>Any random free software project on GitHub, GitLab, Codeberg etc has an
>issue tracker were issues can be opened, browsed and discussed.  There
>is no membership requirement.
>
>I can think of lots of argument against systematically tracked issues --
>IMHO most boils down to "too much work" -- but membership concerns
>haven't been on my radar for that.

The membership question depends on whether one requires on a fixed 
number of persons to work on a draft.  The number would be point in 
time within an IETF context, i.e. it would be different one month 
earlier or one month later.  For what it is worth, there isn't any 
publicly-accessible information about the mailing list composition nowadays.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy