Melinda,
again I agree that this is an issue, but I'm not sure about the
magnitude. The "support as co-author" often happens when a new
author has her/his first draft progressed through a wglc.
This is a good opportunity to reply with an off-line mail as
say "yes we understand that you supports the document - after
all you are co-author; but please note that the IETF consensus
process does not work by voting". And maybe a pointer to the
Tao of IETF.
/Loa
On 2013-09-10 13:39, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 9/10/2013 3:29 AM, Loa Andersson wrote:
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".
Right, that's my feeling as well. But I do think that
consensus processes are not well-understood, to the
detriment of the IETF, and that misunderstanding can be
expressed in a variety of ways, including responding
to working group last calls with a vote. As the
organization has grown and changed over the years this
has become more of an issue. It's a very good thing
that the IETF has grown and changed, and having a broader
set of participants both improves our documents and improves
the uptake of our documents, but it does mean
that from time to time we need to remind ourselves that
we do business a little (or a lot) differently from
other standards bodies.
One response I've never seen but that would indicate that
the person "gets it" would be a response along the lines
of "I don't agree with the contents of this document but
I made my case during its development, and while I'd
like my disagreement noted I will not object to it moving
forward."
Melinda
--
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
