Discussion != want-to-work-on-the-topic
/as
On 08/11/2012 10:54, Murphy, Sandra wrote:
>>> Calls for adoption are not (supposed) to discuss content.
>>
>> Thanks for that clarification. The IETF is a deliberative body, and I was
>> under the impression that discussion at any point in the process, though
>> not optimal, was acceptable. I did not realize SIDR had deviated.
>
> I did not say discussion was prohibited. That "supposed" is as in
> "supposedly".
>
> Calls for adoption are to indicate interest in working on a topic. The
> intent of a call for adoption is not consensus on the content. Review of the
> content is not the purpose of a call for adoption.
>
> I know I've said something like this before in calls for adoption. This
> should not be a surprise.
>
> --Sandy
> ________________________________________
> From: Andy Newton [[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 10:41 AM
> To: Murphy, Sandra; Christopher Morrow
> Cc: Alexey Melnikov; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [sidr] WG acceptance call for draft-ymbk-rpki-grandparenting
>
> On 11/8/12 9:57 AM, "Murphy, Sandra" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> Calls for adoption are not (supposed) to discuss content.
>
> Thanks for that clarification. The IETF is a deliberative body, and I was
> under the impression that discussion at any point in the process, though
> not optimal, was acceptable. I did not realize SIDR had deviated.
>
>> Are you sure you are not thinking of wglc, where consensus on the content
>> is needed?
>
> I'm pretty sure I understand the difference between WGLC and wg document
> acceptance. What I am uncertain about is the criteria for working group
> document acceptance in SIDR.
>
>> And I said it generated "a first storm of discussion", not "interest".
>
> So, is "a fire storm of discussion" the threshold for document acceptance?
> If a document fails to generate such a storm, will it not be accepted?
> Since ROVER did generate a storm, will you be accepting it as a working
> group document? Again, I'm trying to determine the criteria upon which the
> chairs accept a document as a working group item. I do find "a fire storm
> of discussion" to be a unique threshold.
>
> I'll note that you did say, "Nothing like actively working on a topic to
> demonstrate interest in working on the topic." Hence my confusion.
>
> -andy
>
> _______________________________________________
> sidr mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
>
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
