Re: Support (as co-author)

[Mary Barnes <[e-mail]>]

In general, I would posit it doesn't carry much weight.  But, there are
times when one or more authors update drafts before meetings and all the
authors have not reviewed or may not necessarily agree.   The author that
didn't get to preview prior to the meeting or doesn't necessarily agree may
not have anticipated the document moving to ready to adopt state at that
particular point in time and they may want to have further discussions with
co-authors and make additional changes prior to asking for WG adoption.
 That gives flexibility to the authors to make changes without WG
consensus.  Of course, that takes us to another point that WG documents are
very often updated that don't necessarily reflect WG consensus.    And, the
burden there belongs with the authors and WGs that go along with that
manner of working.  Although, at times that's not a real problem since
there are cases in some WGs where work has a very narrow scope of interest.

In short, I don't see an issue with those emails and it would be a lot more
work for WG chairs to try to police that than just taking the approach of
not giving that as much weight unless of course, it's *only* authors
posting those emails.

Regards,
Mary.



On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 9:10 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
>
>
>
>