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

[Brian Dickson <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Alexey Melnikov
<[e-mail]>wrote:

> On 08/11/2012 05:53, Byron Ellacott wrote:
>
>> Hi Chris,
>>
>> On 08/11/2012, at 3:04 PM, Christopher Morrow <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>  On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 1:36 AM, Byron Ellacott <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Chris,
>>>>
>>>> When did the WG reach consensus on adopting this draft?
>>>>
>>> when it spent ~50 mesasages discussing it?
>>> it seems that, even if we abandon it in the end, discussing this over
>>> a draft is a good thing to do.
>>>
>> When that discussion happened, the chairs declared a lack of consensus
>> for adoption: http://www.ietf.org/mail-**archive/web/sidr/current/**
>> msg05015.html<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sidr/current/msg05015.html>
>>
> Byron and others,
> I think WG chairs (collectively) dropped the ball here: 3 of us have
> discussed the acceptance call a couple of times. We would like to apologize
> for sending inconsistent messages.
>
> After talking to various people this week, it looks like the best way
> forward is for the chairs to redo the acceptance call and ask very specific
> questions to keep everybody unconfused and hopefully happy.
>


I'd like to note that in general, WG acceptance processes are a critical
part of IETF processes.

In particular, the WG consensus on adoption, is the one critical place in
preventing "gaming the system".

An adoption call should have three (or four) responses:

Ready for Adoption
Needs more work BEFORE Adoption
Should not (never) be adopted
Abstain/don't care

The "needs more work" is the way that WG participants can hold
authors/editors accountable for making requested changes.

If a draft is accepted in its current state, then any promises by the
authors to make changes are much like promises by politicians during
election campaigns - not worth the paper they are written on.

However, if the WG insists on changes BEFORE adoption, the reliance on
promises goes away - which is a good thing.

Any discussion on the content of a draft, which is prompted by a WG
adoption request, SHOULD be taken by chairs as "Needs more work BEFORE
Adoption".

Since this does not seem to have been the case, please ask the WG to answer
one of the four ways, explicitly.

BTW:

I believe that this draft should not be adopted in its current form (if
ever).

Brian