Re: Status of this memo

[Keith Moore <[e-mail]>]

On 4/27/21 12:17 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:

> I think Keith is recollecting some experience with WGs where the chairs used the WG document process to run the show without much regard to the WG’s opinions.

Yes, I've seen that happen.  But I've also seen something subtly 
different happen, which is to ask the WG for "consensus" before there's 
really been time for participants to have informed opinions, and then 
(sometimes) treat that "consensus" as if it were set in stone for the 
lifetime of the WG.

What I've seen repeated at many f2f WG meetings:  "how many people have 
read the draft?" (a few hands raised).   and later: "how many people 
support adoption of this document?"   (many more hands raised).   People 
don't even know what they're expressing an opinion on, but they want to 
get on with it!

IMO consensus is meaningless if obtained prematurely, just as consensus 
is meaningless if the WG leaders effectively dictate the outcome.    I 
don't think we should be asking for "consensus" about anything on 
revision -00 documents.    What seems more appropriate is that as a 
document evolves, there's increasing confidence in the WG that the 
document is approaching the criteria for its intended status.   And any 
indications of the status of the document (to the extent that they're 
necessary) should reflect that degree of confidence or lack thereof.   
But I don't think it's helpful to be too formal about this, so rather 
than try to come up with some scheme to express that level of 
confidence, I recommend that we just wait until after WGLC to claim 
consensus of the WG.

> In that case, I’d say: get new chairs!  We don’t need to make the process capable of coping with this abuse.

It's pretty difficult to get chairs replaced.   It looks bad for the 
people who appointed them.   At best, you might get their AD to have a 
word with them.

Keith