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

The lack of interactivity was more our fault than any one else's, we took
Alan¹s comments and incorporated them into the version we uploaded in Feb.

What we should have done was collate Alan¹s comments to promote
discussion. We¹re attempting to rectify than that now:

1) We put Alan¹s comments on v5 put on a single mail list a few days ago
2) We are going to give an initial response ASAP (will take a few days)
3) More discussions will ensure, and other comments on the doc may be
generated
4) We will hopefully steer towards a consensus that will feed into v7.

Regards,

Doug.

On 15/05/2017 18:00, "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com> wrote:

>----- 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
>