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

[Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

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/

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. 

While it is true that the WG can rewrite all of the document once adopted,
it must be understood that there is a certain stickiness to fundamental
ideas that are contained in adopted documents (the details may be changed,
but the main thrust is much harder to change).

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.

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.

Thanks,
Adrian