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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Let's stipulate that this paragraph of the draft needs to be rewritten.
What does it need to say beyond what is said in RFC2418 (quoted in
my previous message)?

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

On 22-Jul-20 14:15, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> I strongly disagree with the text below about a WG automatically 
> adopting a DT result.
> The DT is not the WG.  It is not acceptable, in my view, for the DT 
> product to be automatically adopted.  In the two current cases I am 
> involved with, it would be very bad, as it is clear that the purpose of 
> the design team is to create a proposal which the WG can then review to 
> see if it (the WG) agrees that it is a good starting point.  (And yes, 
> both DTs are chair-appointed DTs.)
> 
> Yours,
> Joel
> 
> On 7/21/2020 9:58 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
>>
>> Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>      > 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/
>>
>> (fixed in my copy)
>>
>>      > 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.
>>
>> I guess I disagree about the mechanicals of the process.
>> I really think that the DT should be charged with uploading it's work as draft-ietf-foobar-00.txt
>> If the WG hates the result, then the DT can be fired and a new one created.
>>
>> Adoption is not endorsement.
>>
>>      > 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.
>>
>> I agree totally, but the WG created the design team.
>> If we do agenda time correctly, then the DT might get none.
>>
>>      > 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.
>>
>> If it deserved agenda time, then adopt it.
>>
>> --
>> ]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
>> ]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
>> ]     [e-mail]  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
>>   -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
>>
>>
>>
>>
>