Re: [OPSAWG] draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-06 Contributions, Status and Plans

Thanks Tom for pointing this out.
We appreciate any review comment. That really helps to improve the document.
I think it's back on the right track now. Hopefully, the authors can respond to more interactions. 

Regards,
Tianran
> -----Original Message-----
> From: t.petch [mailto:ietfc@btconnect.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 1:01 AM
> To: Alan DeKok; Ignas Bagdonas
> Cc: Douglas Gash (dcmgash); opsawg@ietf.org;
> draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs@ietf.org; opsawg-chairs@ietf.org;
> ops-ads@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-06 Contributions, Status
> and Plans
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ignas Bagdonas" <ibagdona@gmail.com>
> To: "Alan DeKok" <aland@deployingradius.com>
> Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 5:00 PM
> 
> > Hi Alan,
> >
> > On 13/05/2017 12:59, Alan DeKok wrote:
> > > The approach in the IETF is to have authors move towards WG
> consensus.
> > > i.e. to prove to to the WG that the draft is ready for publication.
> > >    If you're not going to work towards WG consensus, I suggest the
> chairs replace you with authors who will.
> >
> > WG chairs can appoint or change authors if needed under the process
> > described in RFC7221 and its referenced documents. The individual
> draft
> > has been accepted as a WG one a while ago with no changes in author
> > list. If current document authors would like to make any changes to
> > author/co-author/editor list WG chairs will certainly approve those
> > changes. Otherwise unless there is clear evidence that current authors
> > cannot make progress with the document, WG chairs do not have
> intentions
> > of changing the author list. This decision may be revisited if
> evidence
> > of author/co-author/editor duties not being performed to the expected
> > level surfaces, but at this time there is no such evidence. The
> process
> > of progressing the document is slow, slower than it could have been,
> but
> > it is not stalled.
> 
> Ignas
> 
> I echo part of what Alan says, that for a WG document, the editors should
> reflect the consensus of the WG.  The problem I see is the lack of consensus,
> not with people disagreeing, but with an absence of people agreeing.
> 
> Alan made a number of comments in October last year, Alexander made some
> in  November but I did not see much follow up from anyone else to either
> set of comments.
> 
> Trouble is, do the editors incorporate comments that one person has made
> and noone else has agreed or disagreed with?  There is no good answer.
> 
> In other WGs, I have seen ping-pong, one person comments, comments
> incorporated, someone else then disagrees, disagreements incorporated into
> a new revision, first person comes back, changes incorporated into a newer
> revision and so on, circling around a lack of consensus.
> Changing editors, unless it is to someone remote from the subject, is unlikely
> to change things..
> 
> I did look at Alan's comments, agreed with some, disagreed with others,
> ditto Alexander's, but was disinclined to do more with noone else chipping
> in, especially as several more did chip in in the initial stages of should
> we adopt this, and what status should it be.
> 
> How you stir people into life is a challenge for WG chairs.
> 
> Tom Petch
> 
> > Thank you.
> >
> > Ignas
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OPSAWG mailing list
> > OPSAWG@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg