[Sidrops] Re: SIDROps Charter update

[Tom Strickx <[e-mail]>]

All,

Going through the feedback provided by folks so far, I see multiple
mentions of "code". I'm somewhat surprised to see that we're postponing an
inclusion (yet again).
What gave the impression that the proposed wording needed more discussion?
Is this discussion for discussion sake? Design by committee?
Surely we're a group of grounded adults that can agree on something fairly
simple? It seems to work for the rest of the wording?

If we push through the current charter without the implementation
requirement, we're back to the start of a tedious process to get it added
(and added it should). To then maybe end up with
"ah, but we must discuss more!" at the end of it.

I'm disappointed.
-- 
Tom Strickx
Principal Network Engineer
AS13335 - Cloudflare


On Thu, Oct 2, 2025 at 10:00 PM Bob Beck <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Reading back through the feedback on list since the call for review of the
> draft  rechartering, It certainly seems like of the opinions raised in
> favour of the rechartering, that I see were *also* in favour of including
> the requirement for two running implementations in addition to the stated
> draft rechartering. Yes, there were not many voices speaking up anyway,
> however, this is relatively common on IETF lists when relatively passive
> observers see that “yes there seem to be voices being spoken up with
> reasonable opinions”.
>
> There were a few concerns about other issues such as being concerned about
> stalling drafts in progress.
>
> Given that those offering a supportive opinion for the rechartering
> *draft* being presented for review also appear to be predominantly  in
> support of adding the wording to requiring running code, It seems very odd
> that then this was brought forward and surprise, approved by an AD, done
> and dusted, end of debate,  without this.
>
> Was the “draft” being asked for review just polite fib for giving lip
> service to asking for consensus?  The draft was already going to be sent to
> the AD’s as is no matter what was discussed on list?
>
> It seems as if this “draft” was only sent out for information that this
> was just the way it was going to be and it was already decided, If it was
> already pre decided that changes suggested by the mailing list would not be
> considered and this would be presented to the list as fait accompli from
> the AD, why waste the lists time and energy asking for a rubber stamp?  It
> would be quicker to just say “we decided what the new charter is, here it
> is”.
>
> -Bob
>
>
> > On Oct 2, 2025, at 01:58, Job Snijders <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 02, 2025 at 06:18:03AM +0000, [e-mail]
> wrote:
> >> Hi Luigi, all,
> >>
> >> Thank you all for the work put into this minor update to unlock
> manifest-number.
> >
> > The majority of the authors of manifest-numbers indicated they'd like to
> > see a running code requirement in the charter. So if you are trying to
> > rush through this charter update it is NOT for the the benefit of the
> > manifest-numbers document.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > Job
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Sidrops mailing list -- [e-mail]
> > To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sidrops mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>