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

[Keith Moore <[e-mail]>]

On 7/22/20 8:28 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

>> 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.

IMO even this states it a bit too strongly.    IMO a DT should not be 
used as a political tool to convince a WG to adopt a particular document 
or documents.  So there should be no presumption whatsoever that a DT's 
output will be adopted.   It should be treated as a proposal, nothing 
more, and alternative proposals should be welcomed.

More generally, I have often seen the "adoption of a draft" question as 
an undesirable short-circuiting of the IETF process, as WGs often seem 
to be asked to adopt a draft before there's any shared sense of the 
problem or the potential solution space.   I have a similar view of the 
practice of naming a draft in a WG's charter as the presumed starting 
basis of the group's output.

I understand why WG chairs and IESG want to avoid having WGs wander 
around, seemingly aimlessly, struggling to find a common direction.   
But I don't think early adoption of a draft by a WG serves the Internet 
community most of the time.   I'd rather see a discussion period 
followed by an invitation to people to submit proposals, with the 
understanding that the WG may want to combine 2 or more of the proposals 
rather than pick a clear winner.

Keith