On 4/21/21 10:20 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
On 4/21/21 1:06 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
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.)
Concur with Joel on the above.
Also, if you believe that a WG chair is unfairly excluding
contributions that are within the WG's charter, that seems like
grounds for an appeal, and differences of opinion about such judgments
are one of the reasons that we have an appeals process.
My overarching point here is that it was entirely predicable. To get
shut down unceremoniously after a half dozen messages and less than a
day... really? That impeded working group progress? As I said before,
there are no other venues to go to to get answers to basic questions.
Are working groups so fragile that they can't have any meta conversations?
In other words, if a dispute can be handled by existing process,
trying to let that process work might be the best thing to do. If you
try the process and it doesn't work for whatever reason, maybe there's
a bigger problem there.
Sorry, I have no interest in "appealing" or chasing other process. The
point here isn't to "win".
Mike
