Re: Question about pre-meeting document posting deadlines for the IESG and the community

[Keith Moore <[e-mail]>]

On 3/17/24 16:35, Carsten Bormann wrote:

> I’ve sometimes run into people who think we first need to establish
> working group consensus to merge a PR (*).  WG chairs are of course free
>   to set up rules like that,
I hope they don't set up rules like that, and I hope their ADs 
discourage them setting up rules like that.

IMO the author/editor has an important role in figuring out how to craft 
text that earns and builds consensus while still being technically 
sound, and questions like "approve this PR yes/no?" aren't ideal for 
that.   ESPECIALLY when the question is framed by the PR submitter and 
put to the group in that form, bypassing the author/editor.
> but then I think we don’t even need working
> group consensus to submit an updated I-D — that is exactly done so we
> have an efficient way to check whether the working group agrees with the
>   direction proposed by the I-D authors.
yes.

IMO PRs should be taken as concrete suggestions to the authors/editors, 
nothing more, with no expectation that they'll be used intact or even at 
all.

Keith