Rule of removing adopted work (was Re: Question about pre-meeting document posting deadlines for the IESG and the community)

[Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]>]

Hi Keith,

As I agree with your reply to one suggestion for different subject (but
similar related to drafts' submission and management), would like to know
your opinion.

IMHO the rule is that the people/WG who adopted the work they are the only
that should remove it with consensus and also they should have clear
discussion at least why they think to remove it. So IETF should know within
its *History* the answer of WHY removed and should be with consensus proven.

In my WG that I usually participate, we got an adopted work for long time
but then removed (maybe in 2016) from charter for no known clear reason, so
I would like to know what is expected in IETF future, and what do you think
the usual rule/mechanism for removal of WG adopted draft.

Best Regards,
AB


On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 2:22 AM Keith Moore <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> 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
>
>
>