Re: [netconf] Regarding 108 adoption hums

Henk,

as far as I recall, all hums were 'piano' and given the new humming
tool, nobody really knows what a 'piano' result really means. And as
you know, all WG decisions are taken on the mailing list - so I do
not see anything wrong with asking the mailing list.

/js

On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 11:15:42AM +0200, Henk Birkholz wrote:
> Hi chairs,
> hi list,
> 
> I have to admit that I am also tad bit puzzled by this procedure, I am
> afraid. If this this would be a WGLC instead of a WGA, I'd be inclined to
> support a more fine grained gateway procedure. But presenting the session
> output as "the results didn’t adequately determine if the drafts should be
> adopted" seems to be a bit off. Why not ask for discrete concerns about
> adoption motions for specific contributions instead of this (rather
> surprising) reset?
> 
> Viele Grüße,
> 
> Henk
> 
> 
> On 07.08.20 10:59, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> > Hi chairs,
> > 
> > I think this is an interesting approach to determining whether there is interest in a number of drafts at the same time, and I agree with you that a hum at a working group meeting means nothing without confirming the opinion on the mailing list.
> > 
> > But I'm worried that you may be introducing yet another piece of process into how we process documents.
> > 
> > The adoption poll, itself, is not necessary if it is obvious to the chairs that a draft is within charter and has support [RFC7221]. But in addition to the poll, we also have somehow introduced an IPR poll at adoption time (while I can see the merits of being explicit about IPR, and we have seen one or two people attempt to wriggle out of their responsibilities, it seems unnecessary to serialize the two calls). Now you appear to be introducing an additional step to test "adoption suitability".
> > 
> > Can I urge you (strongly? :-) to consider the responses to you adoption suitability tests and, if they are solid, to move straight to adoption without making the working group go though a prolonged series of polls. We would, I think, prefer to get on with the work!
> > 
> > Best,
> > Adrian
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: netconf <netconf-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Kent Watsen
> > Sent: 05 August 2020 23:13
> > To: netconf@ietf.org
> > Subject: [netconf] Regarding 108 adoption hums
> > 
> > 
> > NETCONF WG,
> > 
> > 
> > The Chairs & AD discussed the results of the various adoption hums conducted during the 108 meeting.  There is a sense that the results didn’t adequately determine if the drafts should be adopted.  In particular, it wasn’t clear if the hums reflected a general desire to solve the problem or support for the particular draft.
> > 
> > As such, we’ve decided to send subsequent emails for each draft, or set of drafts if appropriate, to solicit input on following questions:
> > 
> >      1) is the problem important for the NETCONF WG to solve?
> >      2) is the draft a suitable basis for the work?
> > 
> > 
> > NETCONF Chairs
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > netconf mailing list
> > netconf@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > netconf mailing list
> > netconf@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netconf mailing list
> netconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>