Doug When I look at the I-D -06, I am struck by two 'procedural' flaws, at the beginning and the end of the I-D, where I am so used to a document shepherd saying 'yes, that has been done' that I cannot recall when last I saw an I-D, even at an early stage of the WG process, which had not got these points right. Mmm; it ought not to matter, but when I see them, well it makes me back off a little.
Have a look and see if you see what I see - if not, I will let you know. And my Reply All to Ignas gets an SMTP bounce "5.1.0 - Unknown address error 550-'5.1.1 <[email protected]>... User unknown'" Probably part of the expansion of [email protected] <[email protected]> Mmmm2 Tom Petch ----- Original Message ----- From: "Douglas Gash (dcmgash)" <[email protected]> To: "t.petch" <[email protected]>; "Alan DeKok" <[email protected]>; "Ignas Bagdonas" <[email protected]> Cc: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 7:10 PM The lack of interactivity was more our fault than any one else's, we took Alan¹s comments and incorporated them into the version we uploaded in Feb. What we should have done was collate Alan¹s comments to promote discussion. We¹re attempting to rectify than that now: 1) We put Alan¹s comments on v5 put on a single mail list a few days ago 2) We are going to give an initial response ASAP (will take a few days) 3) More discussions will ensure, and other comments on the doc may be generated 4) We will hopefully steer towards a consensus that will feed into v7. Regards, Doug. On 15/05/2017 18:00, "t.petch" <[email protected]> wrote: >----- 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
