Re: Telechat reviews [Re: Tooling glitch in Last Call announcements and records]

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

tom petch <[e-mail]> wrote:
    > Indeed, and I see the WG Chair as having more influence in this matter
    > than the ADs who come and go more often in my experience.  Also, I see
    > the WG style as a major influence.  Some WG Chair say there has been no
    > response to WGLC so the I-D will be forwarded to the IETF.  Other WG
    > Chair say there has been no response so the I-D will NOT be forwarded.
    > To me, both are correct.  It is the house style of the WG which AD may
    > or may not come across in their own WG.

I think that in both cases the WG chairs ought to review RFC7282.
I think that WG chairs are responsible for judging consensus.

A draft which has received significant discussion, even if not during WGLC,
could be ready.  I abhor "as the author I +1", as it leads to no useful
information in my opinion.

I've seen WG chairs complain that even the authors didn't +1, and frankly,
they shouldn't have to.

WG chairs need to structure all consensys calls with a deadline, and a
default action if there is no dissension.    That could well be negative:
        "The WG chairs have seen significant objection to draft foo-bar,
        however, it is unclear if the objections stand given the latest
        changes.  Please post within two weeks if you have changed your mind,
        otherwise, the WG will abandon the document on YYYYMMDD."

--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide