Re: [Openpgp-dt] Resurrecting the design team?

[Daniel Huigens <[e-mail]>]

On Thursday, September 15th, 2022 at 09:37, Paul Wouters wrote:

> I am not aware of pending approved issues. I'm waiting on consensus
> calls for some items to be called by the WG chairs.

Sure. I mean, even if we don't have a consensus called yet, there were
some issues with a large majority (or even unanimity) in favor of one
direction. So I was thinking we could at least review the MRs that
address those cases in the design team, on the assumption that we
(will) have consensus on them?

One example of that is [!213], and to some extent the other MRs
referenced in [#143]. An example of unanimity was [#134], addressed by
[!206], but that one has already been approved (including by one chair;
do we need to wait for an explicit call of consensus before merging it?
Maybe the answer is yes, just checking. IMHO we can always revert stuff
if the consensus ends up going the other way.)

> I think we decided that we would talk on the main list on any issues, as
> to ensure we are not excluding the WG.

Right, but that was before IETF 114 - can we have some discussion in the
DT before bringing it back to the WG at IETF 115 again? (It's an honest
question, I don't know the answer. But the discussion on the WG list is
moving very slowly, if at all :') So I thought having a meeting might
rekindle some momentum.)

> If it is editorial, I can pick it up as Editor.

Alright, thanks. There are some MRs with the "non-substantive" label
that fit in this category, and I would add [!199], [!201], and [!205] to
that as well, though that last one has only had one review.

> Anything bigger should
> at least be called out as having concensus by the chairs (or become a
> call to the list for consensus)

Well - for the context separation topic, for example, I tried to get
some discussion going on the WG list, but seem to have failed to do so.
But, before we try (again) to discuss it in the WG, it may be valuable
to discuss it in the DT, I think, so that we can at least gain consensus
there, hopefully?

> I have also pinged the chairs last week to move things forward :)

Thanks :)

Best,
Daniel

[!213]: https://gitlab.com/openpgp-wg/rfc4880bis/-/merge_requests/213
[#143]: https://gitlab.com/openpgp-wg/rfc4880bis/-/issues/143
[#134]: https://gitlab.com/openpgp-wg/rfc4880bis/-/issues/134
[!206]: https://gitlab.com/openpgp-wg/rfc4880bis/-/merge_requests/206
[!199]: https://gitlab.com/openpgp-wg/rfc4880bis/-/merge_requests/199
[!201]: https://gitlab.com/openpgp-wg/rfc4880bis/-/merge_requests/201
[!205]: https://gitlab.com/openpgp-wg/rfc4880bis/-/merge_requests/205