Melinda,
in general I agree with you - but I would say that the "support
as co-author" is in a group of mails that could be called
"unnecessary but not forbidden".
Actually from the mpls wg there are a few expereiences.
Since starting to add "the co-authors of draft-xxx-
has told the wg chairs that the document is ready for working
group last call" to mails that tells what the wg chairs do
with the documents - the "support as co-author" has dropped.
Telling the wg during the wg status report at meeting that if
you are a co-author you don't need to speak up during wglc
in support of a document.
Also telling people that do that anyway offline also has effect.
/Loa
On 2013-09-10 13:15, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 9/9/2013 8:36 PM, ietfdbh wrote:
I think it *does* have meaningful content to say that one supports the
document as a co-author/editor.
I really don't think so. It's meaningful to say that one
is a co-author and doesn't support the draft moving forward.
We don't vote, and I tend to think these "I support as co-
author" posts do take the form of voting.
Melinda
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
--
Loa Andersson email: [email protected]
Senior MPLS Expert [email protected]
Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
