[procon] Re: WG Adoption of an I-D / Procon 2418 bis: Updated text for section 8.2

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 02-Jul-26 14:47, David Schinazi wrote:
> Thanks, everyone. I've incorporated this suggestion into this PR:
> https://github.com/ietf-wg-procon/2418bis/pull/61/changes <https://github.com/ietf-wg-procon/2418bis/pull/61/changes>

OK except that you have "Internet-Drafts" agreeing with "it" in the changed text.

    Brian

> 
> David
> 
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2026 at 3:06 PM Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>     Repeating what I may have said elsewhere, the key point that many
>     newcomers and some old-timers don't understand is that "adopt"
>     does not mean "agree". Non-native speakers are particularly liable
>     to this misunderstanding because of multiple dictionary definitions
>     of "adopt". Even a few words and an informative reference to
>     RFC 7221 would be enough (given that the community has shown little
>     enthusiasm in the past for a normative definition of "adopt".)
> 
>     Regards/Ngā mihi
>          Brian Carpenter
> 
>     On 30-Apr-26 01:26, John C Klensin wrote:
>      > (PROCON list copied, IAB dropped, further discussions should probably
>      > go to PROCON exclusively)
>      >
>      > Agreed, although I see one or two contradictions inherent in WG
>      > adoption.  If the idea is that WGs "adopt" a document in order to
>      > start working on it:
>      >
>      > * couldn't one claim that discussion of whether a document should be
>      > adopted is out of scope... until it is adopted?  "MAY formally adopt"
>      > does not seem to me to solve that problem, just to add questions
>      > about what happens if they don't and what value adoption (or the lack
>      > thereof) actually has.
>      >
>      > * if a WG is looking at a problem but is presented with two (or more)
>      > alternate approaches to solving it, it is reasonable to adopt both
>      > (all) of those documents with the expectation of discarding one or
>      > more later?  "candidate for publication..." may argue against that...
>      > or not, depending on how seriously the WG and the community take
>      > candidacy.
>      >
>      > While I think Andrew's text is an improvement and that it definitely
>      > does not make things worse, it feels like either some additional
>      > effort is needed here or that we should be remembering both the
>      > occasional advantages of some procedural vagueness and our old
>      > principle that every WG, and especially every Area, may be different
>      > than others.
>      >
>      >      john
>      >
>      >
>      > --On Monday, April 27, 2026 15:09 +0100 Adrian Farrel
>      > <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>      >
>      >> That's nice text, Andrew.
>      >>
>      >>
>      >>
>      >> From: Andrew Campling <[e-mail]>
>      >> Sent: 27 April 2026 13:37
>      >> To: Salz, Rich <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; Brian E Carpenter
>      >> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>      >> Cc: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>      >> Subject: RE: WG Adoption of an I-D
>      >>
>      >>
>      >>
>      >> I'm not convinced that the text as worded is sufficiently clear
>      >> that (rough) consensus is not required prior to WG adoption of a
>      >> draft and propose the following.
>      >>
>      >>
>      >>
>      >> Working Groups MAY formally adopt an Internet-Draft to indicate
>      >> that it is being considered as a candidate for publication as an
>      >> RFC. The main difference between a draft owned by an individual and
>      >> one adopted by a working group is that the adoption process hands
>      >> over change control to the working group.  Once a document is
>      >> adopted, Document Editors are tasked with documenting the consensus
>      >> of the Working Group.
>      >>
>      >>
>      >>
>      >> Adoption of a draft is the starting point for the working group to
>      >> work on the document, with no suggestion that there is agreement on
>      >> its content at the point of adoption.  Working group chairs MAY
>      >> adopt a draft if they believe there is sufficient interest in the
>      >> topic covered by the draft; there is no requirement to establish
>      >> rough consensus from the working group for the adoption of a draft.
>      >>
>      >>
>      >>
>      >>
>      >>
>      >> Andrew
>      >>
>      >>
>      >>
>      >> From: Salz, Rich <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> >
>      >> Sent: 27 April 2026 13:12
>      >> To: Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>      >> <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> >; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>      >> <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>      >>
>      >> Cc: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>      >> Subject: Re: Complaint to IAB regarding a declaration of consensus
>      >> to adopt a non-hybrid draft
>      >>
>      >>
>      >>
>      >> *    Yes, although I now wonder whether we should also underline that
>      >> adopt != agree.
>      >>
>      >>
>      >>
>      >> I think it's implied by the current text, but if you want to make
>      >> it more explicit, something like "adoption is the starting point
>      >> for the WG to work on the draft."
>      >>
>      >
>      >
>     _______________________________________________
>     procon mailing list -- [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>