> On Apr 27, 2021, at 6:40 AM, Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 4/27/21 9:32 AM, Scott Bradner wrote: > >> IDs are adopted by WGs when they are material to the work of the WG This has been my experience as well. > > My impression is that, in practice, IDs are "adopted" by WGs when the chair presents that as the next thing for the WG to do, or when the chair wants the WG to make a decision about whether the draft is in-scope for the WG or not. Various working groups and their chairs work somewhat differently; however, in my experience the working group chairs have done a pretty good job of gauging the rough consensus of the working group that the draft is within charter, of interest to the group, and in good enough shape to adopt as a starting point around which additional detail and consensus will be built. In the event the chairs misjudge this, the working group lets them know by indicating very we few people have read, or understood, or support the draft as a starting point at this time. Next steps are determined from there. Overall, in my experience, the working group adoption process has worked very well. Cheers, Charles > > Again, in the first case, I think this often happens without any significant technical evaluation, so it amounts to a premature decision. I also think it often happens without any regard for whether the draft is a good investment of the WG's time, as "adoption" of drafts is a good way for WGs to make more work for themselves and justify their continued existence. > > In the second case, it's quite understandable that a chair wants a decision that can scope future discussion in the WG, but "adoption" seems like the wrong way to think of it. > > Keith > >
