Thanks Tom for pointing this out. We appreciate any review comment. That really helps to improve the document. I think it's back on the right track now. Hopefully, the authors can respond to more interactions.
Regards, Tianran > -----Original Message----- > From: t.petch [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 1:01 AM > To: Alan DeKok; Ignas Bagdonas > Cc: Douglas Gash (dcmgash); [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected] > Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-06 Contributions, Status > and Plans > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ignas Bagdonas" <[email protected]> > To: "Alan DeKok" <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 5:00 PM > > > Hi Alan, > > > > On 13/05/2017 12:59, Alan DeKok wrote: > > > The approach in the IETF is to have authors move towards WG > consensus. > > > i.e. to prove to to the WG that the draft is ready for publication. > > > If you're not going to work towards WG consensus, I suggest the > chairs replace you with authors who will. > > > > WG chairs can appoint or change authors if needed under the process > > described in RFC7221 and its referenced documents. The individual > draft > > has been accepted as a WG one a while ago with no changes in author > > list. If current document authors would like to make any changes to > > author/co-author/editor list WG chairs will certainly approve those > > changes. Otherwise unless there is clear evidence that current authors > > cannot make progress with the document, WG chairs do not have > intentions > > of changing the author list. This decision may be revisited if > evidence > > of author/co-author/editor duties not being performed to the expected > > level surfaces, but at this time there is no such evidence. The > process > > of progressing the document is slow, slower than it could have been, > but > > it is not stalled. > > Ignas > > I echo part of what Alan says, that for a WG document, the editors should > reflect the consensus of the WG. The problem I see is the lack of consensus, > not with people disagreeing, but with an absence of people agreeing. > > Alan made a number of comments in October last year, Alexander made some > in November but I did not see much follow up from anyone else to either > set of comments. > > Trouble is, do the editors incorporate comments that one person has made > and noone else has agreed or disagreed with? There is no good answer. > > In other WGs, I have seen ping-pong, one person comments, comments > incorporated, someone else then disagrees, disagreements incorporated into > a new revision, first person comes back, changes incorporated into a newer > revision and so on, circling around a lack of consensus. > Changing editors, unless it is to someone remote from the subject, is unlikely > to change things.. > > I did look at Alan's comments, agreed with some, disagreed with others, > ditto Alexander's, but was disinclined to do more with noone else chipping > in, especially as several more did chip in in the initial stages of should > we adopt this, and what status should it be. > > How you stir people into life is a challenge for WG chairs. > > Tom Petch > > > Thank you. > > > > Ignas > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > OPSAWG mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
