Re: [Gendispatch] Possible topic: WG adoption of drafts

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Spencer,

On 18/5/20 09:19, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:
[....]
>     the procedures in RFC2026.
> 
> 
> I agree that working group draft adoption is a widespread practice. As 
> an individual participant, I certainly treat this as an important step 
> for drafts I am working on.
> 
> I agree that at least documenting the practice would be helpful to new 
> participants.
> 
> I don't know if it's universal across all working groups. That's 
> probably a question that should also be asked on the wgchairs mailing list.
> 
> I don't know if this step is necessary for all drafts in working groups 
> that use this practice - that's trying to guess the edge cases.

Having a uniform practice among all wgs would be a good idea -- for many 
reasons.



> As I almost always do, I'd phrase guidance on this topic as 
> recommendations - we really do trust working group chairs to make bigger 
> decisions about working group consensus for the benefit of their working 
> groups. So a RECOMMENDED BCP, or even an Informational draft, seems more 
> useful than a REQUIRED BCP, with all the edge cases we usually trip over 
> when we write such text.
> 
> And my understanding is that we can appeal almost anything using the 
> procedures in RFC 2026, if that's what you're referring to. 

I guess you can. But how would you e.g. Appeal a non-decision?


Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492