Re: WG adoption threads

Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com> Fri, 07 August 2015 14:28 UTC

Return-Path: <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 884301B2DE1 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 07:28:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=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 oSuMdVRXsd6U for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 07:28:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qg0-x231.google.com (mail-qg0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8C6D11B2DDF for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 07:28:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qgeh16 with SMTP id h16so75573362qge.3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 07 Aug 2015 07:28:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=P5qAxARpHXNhJzrt7Qh4PJmTjne3sEvr14f3rldXIVM=; b=T77eUFHMwJHsGx6Qf5Li7XG5SnFqUQ67v9nnd1uE+NcefOJqfHH+PzezDT8UUWLO29 7Cq0Dg8MwAWdNKKGQf3czrHo+/oV5hxdz9Uu/27NTGL4XQ1GBsWZ/pH+jxvjdVTjESkw eEDcM9qujRQYJbgr6TfS/CpFwYpnc/v/aluar3URgot9HQo9FHa7AFnjnQDhCSykLJQp Lr8TAkohwTS1uAm/hN/Za+RYmVSrQ00HWmG49knXoiA7CDD/aCbZXdcEHzHWPmp8pms2 SW8l3NN/Q5Ry1tnB5aRk18zgr9EdPqlMH4dzLGrdSBGZbeE7ZKa1RCH9Fkr1fD2fhH+S e2vQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.140.21.138 with SMTP id 10mr13439890qgl.47.1438957735869; Fri, 07 Aug 2015 07:28:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.140.19.85 with HTTP; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 07:28:55 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <55BF8426.2050409@gmail.com>
References: <55BF8426.2050409@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2015 16:28:55 +0200
Message-ID: <CADnDZ8-9FvGqxPd0nC86=57ODyQWqgaYMdLpraZtLUR+5R028g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: WG adoption threads
From: Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c11f3eb181a3051cb974b1"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/aTnF0kPlSE1OFu0KYRXZfA0c1uI>
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2015 14:28:59 -0000

I agree that  the adoption process/practice needs to solve that issue you
pointed out for. The way WG adopts may need some suggestions.


On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:

>Is it useful for authors of a draft to send messages saying things
like "I support the adoption of this draft as a WG document." ?



I think it is not useful, because it could encourage no comments. The focus
should be on non author's opinion, as they should answer the question is
the work ready/acceptable for adoption?



>I'm not asking whether it's right or wrong, just whether such
a message helps the WG Chairs in evaluating consensus.



I agree. I understand that signals of authors announcing their adoption as
saying  '' come on WG let us adopt and discuss later any changes'', they
should include writing in those threads ''please discuss if there are any
comments''.  I think authors' announcement does not help me think nor
discuss with the WG. Specially it does not help me discuss with them
because they already announced as adopted. Not all authors like to discuss
their work, they may prefer WG adoption so they can move on.


(I see similar messages from non-authors, and I am definitely
doubtful about them unless they start with something like "I have
read this draft and...".)



Adoptions need to be discussed within meetings and list (both are
important) and evaluated. I agree that there is less quality in readings of
the majority of WG participants, many chairs do ask us to read all drafts,
but I hope we get more time or discussions.

AB