IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Thu, 23 July 2020 18:10 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
X-Original-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 779F13A0CAE; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 11:10:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.121
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.121 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eS9-x8e60FzA; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 11:10:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from maila1.tigertech.net (maila1.tigertech.net [208.80.4.151]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7172F3A0CC3; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 11:10:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BCL3g1bncz4TDrb; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 11:10:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1595527839; bh=kFKBQ8HjqGB39V0ucgIuHcXUyTLTlS/0BsKTKYYXv3s=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=A5/dvb5xdcTrhz8R+QcC7T0nTPvE1tA5toTAg8yq3yWFTnQCNu3ege3Lurji1FmIy IC+8i1sFHAf+/P25hDwtoqvzGgT3dB196SiJCxS64P00w8jHBpIOE3V7on6GPT+I9R q/oHo1zJt27hRBX/1ISUFPHAPn7ZdWtA7PTZqY1g=
X-Quarantine-ID: <CaXE8i8bCBd2>
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at a1.tigertech.net
Received: from [192.168.128.43] (209-255-163-147.ip.mcleodusa.net [209.255.163.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by maila1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4BCL3d1VjMz4TDbj; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 11:10:37 -0700 (PDT)
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>, adrian@olddog.co.uk, gendispatch@ietf.org, draft-carpenter-gendispatch-draft-adoption@ietf.org
References: <031601d65fb0$f6aa0a30$e3fe1e90$@olddog.co.uk> <22930.1595383098@localhost> <036b01d66003$b2cc4c30$1864e490$@olddog.co.uk> <64b85c4a-dd2f-ed84-27f8-fbe77aa05b02@gont.com.ar> <13414.1595524814@localhost>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <2f20fccc-6136-1c48-aa3c-8fd9be5eb053@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 14:10:36 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <13414.1595524814@localhost>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/q3r2ikSyo_Vj8PrUytvljgg-CdM>
Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] Thoughts on draft-carpenter-gendispatch-draft-adoption
X-BeenThere: gendispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: General Area Dispatch <gendispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gendispatch>, <mailto:gendispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gendispatch/>
List-Post: <mailto:gendispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gendispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch>, <mailto:gendispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 18:10:48 -0000

My understanding of WG document adoption is a stronger statement than 
"no objection".
First and foremost, it is an agreement by the working group that the 
given document is a (not "the", but at least "a") good place to start 
working on the topic.
Second, when I as chair run such a call I expect to see enough interest 
that I believe the working group will work on the document.

As far as I know, those expectations are the (to a reasonable 
approximation) the communities expectation for the meaning.

Yours,
Joel

On 7/23/2020 1:20 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
> 
> Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar> wrote:
>      > * Documents being adopted without a consensus call on the mailing list (and
>      > no previous action item in the charter or anything)
> 
> Chairs *ARE* allowed to do this according to the current guidelines.
> 
> Many chairs and many participants don't know this.
> It's something that I want to preserve.
> I would further say that the Adoption Call is just the chairs asking for
> objections before just adopting a document.
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
>   -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
> 
> 
> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email