Hi Tom, I’d be grateful if you could let me know ;-)
On 16/05/2017 20:18, "t.petch" <[email protected]> wrote: >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
