On 06/06/2014 09:26, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Jun 5, 2014, at 4:28 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> I have to call you on that. WG adoption is not approval. It's agreement >> to work on a topic. It is not OK to attempt a pocket veto on adoption >> because you don't like the existing content. > > WG adoption is a pretty heavy action. It states that the WG has consensus > to work on the document, and weighs heavily in the consensus evaluation > during WGLC. If there are problems with the document, part of the adoption > process should be the identification of those flaws and an agreement to > address them. So bringing up those flaws during the adoption process is > crucial to the process.
I have no problem with that. > It's also worth noting that the INTAREA working group is a special working > group, with an extremely broad charter, Indeed. So (speaking only for myself) I tend to ignore drafts aimed at the WG until they are close to adoption, because my input bit rate is limited. Brian > which is moderated by the fact that in order for work to be done by the > working group, the Internet Area ADs have to approve the work. > > So needless to say I at least am watching keenly to see if Stephen's > objections are being addressed, and likely won't approve the adoption of the > work if they aren't. > > _______________________________________________ ietf-privacy mailing list ietf-privacy@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-privacy
