Michael, I hav eno idea whether your work was or was not appropriate for
the QUIC working group.
Arguing that working group chairs an not declare things out of scope
weakens your overall argument. Working groups have charters. The
chairs are expected to work within the charter. Working group email
lists are for discussion of topics relevant to the working group.
Now, I will grant that charters are not precise. Topics are not
precise. And chairs should (and generally do) err on the side of
allowing some latitude.
But claiming that chairs can not rule things as being out of scope does
not match our process, and would hamper our work. (Who has, as WG
co-chair, suggested to more than one author team that the independent
stream would make a better home for their work, as it does not fit the
charter of the working group.)
Yours,
Joel
On 4/21/2021 12:47 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
On 4/20/21 10:26 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Every WG Chair, especially for a WG that has tight focus on a specific
goal, meets the problem of potentially off-charter discussions that
potentially hamper progress.
This is an often repeated refrain, but I question its actual impact.
People reply to things because they have an opinion and are interested
enough in the subject to make time for it. Posing this as a zero sum
game is a fallacy: if they aren't interested enough at the business at
hand they simply won't reply at all. At some point things become noise,
but a few messages back and forth is hardly that point. In fact,
slightly off topic posts can bring useful insight to working groups, and
can be extremely useful for outsiders to understand what is going on. I
know of no other way to get that understanding other than simply asking
on the working group list. Do you?
That and to be told by a working group chair *in their capacity* to go
away (and away to where? no answer) is dysfunctional, and sends a clear
message that interlopers will not be tolerated.
Mike
