Re: https://chairs.ietf.org/documents/i-d-adoption

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Sofia Celi <[e-mail]> wrote:
    > On 13/10/2025 23:56, Stephen Farrell wrote:
    >> On 13/10/2025 23:29, Pete Resnick wrote:
    >>>
    >>> I think making "calls for adoption" a required formal part of the process
    >>> is conformance-SDO nonsense that we shouldn't be "adopting" (pun intended)
    >>> into the IETF. The tool-of-the-day should not be reason to
    >>> make something a formal rule.
    >> +1 - sometimes stuff is totally obvious, other times
    >> there's severe disagreement about what to do or who
    >> should do it, but we don't need to always assume the
    >> latter.

    > +1 I have also seen individual documents that have already been discussed
    > plenty at ML and meetings, and agreed on, then issued a long call of
    > adoption, which just creates bureaucracy IMHO.

WG chairs can just adopt documents at their whim.  By fiat.
If people/ADs don't like what WG chairs do, then ADs can/should talk to them,
and replace them if necessary.

I strongly recommend that WG chairs do adoption calls like:
  "Chairs see support for working on foo-bar.03.  We plan to adopt it.
  Please post objections by YYYY-MM-DD"

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
]     [e-mail]  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [