Re: [ietf-privacy] [Int-area] WG Adoption

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Thu, 05 June 2014 20:42 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
X-Original-To: ietf-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9F9F1A0278; Thu, 5 Jun 2014 13:42:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 MpsKhl33rsLe; Thu, 5 Jun 2014 13:42:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from maila2.tigertech.net (maila2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.152]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 94A761A018E; Thu, 5 Jun 2014 13:42:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A990A24675E; Thu, 5 Jun 2014 13:42:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at maila2.tigertech.net
Received: from Joels-MacBook-Pro.local (pool-70-106-135-218.clppva.east.verizon.net [70.106.135.218]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D62612467B7; Thu, 5 Jun 2014 13:42:25 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <5390D632.3040907@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2014 16:42:26 -0400
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
References: <E87B771635882B4BA20096B589152EF628724B2C@eusaamb107.ericsson.se> <539016BE.3070008@gmx.net> <53906711.5070406@cs.tcd.ie> <5390D2F8.6000801@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <5390D2F8.6000801@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-privacy/LQt3ttgHPcS4tQdXmDYz7Q8z3oc
Cc: "ietf-privacy@ietf.org" <ietf-privacy@ietf.org>, int-area@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-privacy] [Int-area] WG Adoption
X-BeenThere: ietf-privacy@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Internet Privacy Discussion List <ietf-privacy.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf-privacy>, <mailto:ietf-privacy-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-privacy/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-privacy@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-privacy-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-privacy>, <mailto:ietf-privacy-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2014 20:42:52 -0000

Brian, in my experience working group adoption is more than the working 
group agreeing to work on the topic.  It is generally the working group 
agreeing that the given document is a good basis for starting the work. 
  Yes, there will almost always be need for improvement.  Sometimes 
major improvement.  But it is an agreement that this is a good starting 
point.

Without commenting on the specific document, leaving out that 
consideration in your response to Stephen makes the discussion MUCH harder.

Yours,
Joel

On 6/5/14, 4:28 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
...
> I have to call you on that. WG adoption is not approval. It's agreement
> to work on a topic. It is not OK to attempt a pocket veto on adoption
> because you don't like the existing content.
...