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

[t.petch <[e-mail]>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ignas Bagdonas" <[e-mail]>
To: "Alan DeKok" <[e-mail]>
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
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg