Re: [sidr] WG acceptance call for draft-ymbk-rpki-grandparenting

	Discussion != want-to-work-on-the-topic

/as


On 08/11/2012 10:54, Murphy, Sandra wrote:
>>> Calls for adoption are not (supposed) to discuss content.
>>
>> Thanks for that clarification. The IETF is a deliberative body, and I was
>> under the impression that discussion at any point in the process, though
>> not optimal, was acceptable. I did not realize SIDR had deviated.
> 
> I did not say discussion was prohibited.  That "supposed" is as in "supposedly".
> 
> Calls for adoption are to indicate interest in working on a topic.  The intent of a call for adoption is not consensus on the content.  Review of the content is not the purpose of a call for adoption.
> 
> I know I've said something like this before in calls for adoption.  This should not be a surprise.
> 
> --Sandy
> ________________________________________
> From: Andy Newton [andy@arin.net]
> Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 10:41 AM
> To: Murphy, Sandra; Christopher Morrow
> Cc: Alexey Melnikov; sidr@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [sidr] WG acceptance call for draft-ymbk-rpki-grandparenting
> 
> On 11/8/12 9:57 AM, "Murphy, Sandra" <Sandra.Murphy@sparta.com> wrote:
> 
>>> Calls for adoption are not (supposed) to discuss content.
> 
> Thanks for that clarification. The IETF is a deliberative body, and I was
> under the impression that discussion at any point in the process, though
> not optimal, was acceptable. I did not realize SIDR had deviated.
> 
>> Are you sure you are not thinking of wglc, where consensus on the content
>> is needed?
> 
> I'm pretty sure I understand the difference between WGLC and wg document
> acceptance. What I am uncertain about is the criteria for working group
> document acceptance in SIDR.
> 
>> And I said it generated "a first storm of discussion", not "interest".
> 
> So, is "a fire storm of discussion" the threshold for document acceptance?
> If a document fails to generate such a storm, will it not be accepted?
> Since ROVER did generate a storm, will you be accepting it as a working
> group document? Again, I'm trying to determine the criteria upon which the
> chairs accept a document as a working group item. I do find "a fire storm
> of discussion" to be a unique threshold.
> 
> I'll note that you did say, "Nothing like actively working on a topic to
> demonstrate interest in working on the topic." Hence my confusion.
> 
> -andy
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sidr mailing list
> sidr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
>