Sam,
On Fri, 6 Nov 2015, Stephen Kent wrote:
So, unless the folks who volunteered to assume responsibility for the
doc (all of whom were already listed as co-authors) are prepared to
do a much better job in addressing these shortcomings, I object to
continuing with this work.
It sounds like you're objecting to the work because the editors of
this WG draft have been insufficiently responsive to your criticisms.
Non-responsive to specific suggested changes and noted technical flaws
would be more accurate.
That sounds like a WG management issue, and I am disappointed that you
would ask the WG to abandon useful work because of it.
Perhaps you have not been following this thread closely. Geoff said that
he didn't
want to continue as document editor, and that triggered the call by thew
WG chairs
as to whether the doc should die. I didn't initiate that question; I
replied to it.
I take the view that document editors have been given the task of
documenting the consensus of a WG. If you think the editors aren't
documenting consensus correctly or are just doing a poor job with the
writing, take it up with the chairs. It might be helpful to recruit
some alternative editors, particularly ones who don't seem to have a
strong bias re: the topic - finding good document editors is a
persistent problem in many WGs. At the same time, recognize that if
you're too far in the rough (which you might be), your own criticisms
may not result in changes to the doc.
Several folks who were listed as co-authors have offered to assume
responsibility
for the doc, so the "recruiting" task seems to have been done, at the
behest of the WG
chairs. As for their bias, I think they have an opportunity to revise
the document in
a way to avoid a perception of a strong bias, and they should be given a
chance to do so.
If I am in the rough, perhaps it's because I am one of the very few
people who
take time to read docs like this, in detail. I recall that Chris
admitted, at the
mic, that he had not read the adverse actions I-D, so I don't know if he
also
didn't read (or read carefully) the validation reconsidered doc. I get
the sense
that folks often express support for a doc based on a slide
presentation, rather
that reading the doc. Its a problem in many WGs, and this one probably
is not an exception.
Steve
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
