Re: Support (as co-author)

[Fred Baker <[e-mail]>]

Perhaps; personally, I would do that in private email (“well, we assumed that of you...”).

One thing I find a little frustrating is that we have pretty simple rules in v6ops - we’re looking for a draft to be posted and announced to the list that matches our charter, and then for other people to discuss it in email, with at least some positive commentary. At this past meeting, I had an author tell me that there had been discussion of his draft (which was true, but it was all negative commentary) and therefore he wanted an agenda slot (I replied listing people that commented and what they had said). We ended our meeting a few minutes short, and he walked to the mike announcing that he had his slides with him and wanted to present his draft. I wanted to ask him exactly what part of “no” was confusing to him.

We similarly have one author that we have actually given the floor to and let the working group boo him off the stage. He now periodically comments to the list that the chairs aren’t supportive of his draft.

I think sometimes people are just a little dense.

> On Nov 25, 2019, at 7:10 AM, Benoit Claise <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> Along the years, I witnessed a trend, which intensifies with time: "I support the adoption of this draft (as a co-author)."
> Well, if someone is a co-author, implicitly this person wants the draft to progress. Therefore, such as message carries no weight IMO.
> Is it time for the WG chairs to start correcting this behaviour, or at least setting the right expectations?
> 
> ex: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ippm/?q=Adoption%20Call%20for%20draft-ioamteam-ippm-ioam-direct-export
> 
> Regards, Benoit
> 
> 
>