> On May 11, 2017, at 8:35 AM, Benoit Claise <[email protected]> wrote: > > Let's remind ourselves what the ABSTAIN is for. > From https://www.ietf.org/iesg/voting-procedures.html > <https://www.ietf.org/iesg/voting-procedures.html> : > "Abstain" means "I cannot support sending this document forward." There are > two obvious reasons an AD might post this ballot position: > > I am so strongly opposed to the document that I am unwilling to "discuss". > (Note that this should be very unusual.) > I oppose this document but understand that others differ and am not going to > stand in the way of the others. > It is normal good practice for an AD to enter a Comment that explains the > reason for their Abstain position. > > "Not very useful" might fit in the HBU category (*), but that's a different > situation IMO.
Different from what? It’s each AD’s prerogative to decide why he or she may "oppose this document but understand that others differ.” It would not be wise to try to impose some standard on what others can find objectionable in an ABSTAIN ballot, IMO. Alissa > > (*) HBU: "Harmless But Useless". Ron Bonica's copyright. > > Regards, Benoit >>> On May 9, 2017, at 11:42 AM, Mirja Kühlewind <[email protected]> >>> <mailto:[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> The i2nsf charter says >>> >>> "A single document covering use cases, problem statement, and gap analysis >>> document. This document will initially be produced for reference as a >>> living list to track and record discussions: the working group may decide >>> to not publish this document as an RFC." >>> >>> It's okay for me that the wg decided that they want to publish this >>> document (for whatever reason). I've read it and did not find it very >>> useful for people outside the wg. However, that's why I abstain and not >>> blocking it. >> +1 >> Alissa >> >>> Mirja >>> >>> >>> >>> On 09.05.2017 17:09, Benoit Claise wrote: >>>> On 5/9/2017 4:56 PM, Warren Kumari wrote: >>>>> Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for >>>>> draft-ietf-i2nsf-problem-and-use-cases-15: No Objection >>>>> >>>>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all >>>>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this >>>>> introductory paragraph, however.) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html >>>>> <https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html> >>>>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-problem-and-use-cases/ >>>>> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-problem-and-use-cases/> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> COMMENT: >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> >>>>> I found the document to provide a useful overview and introduction - I >>>>> think that documents which provide an introduction to a technology are >>>>> useful, as they set the stage for users and implementers to understand >>>>> how everything ties together. >>>>> >>>>> I thank the authors for writing it. >>>>> >>>>> I also note that this is part of the I2NSF charter, and was written to >>>>> satisfy this. >>>> Indeed. >>>> We clarified the situation of "support documents" with this IESG statement: >>>> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/support-documents-in-ietf-wgs.html >>>> <https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/support-documents-in-ietf-wgs.html>, >>>> dated >>>> Nov 2016. >>>> The statement contains this key sentence IMO: >>>> >>>> As regards to timing, it would be worthwhile to discuss the need to >>>> publish support documents early during the charter development process >>>> in >>>> order to set the right expectations and minimize surprises at a late >>>> stage. >>>> >>>> The authors produced the charter deliverables. Thanks for that. >>>> Once a deliverable is in an existing charter, I don't really understand the >>>> meaning of abstaining. >>>> The IESG statement should take effect for future charter discussions, not >>>> past charters. >>>> >>>> Regards, Benoit >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> I2nsf mailing list >>>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf >>>>> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf> >>>>> . >>>>> >> . >> >
_______________________________________________ I2nsf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
