On 4/27/21 12:17 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
I think Keith is recollecting some experience with WGs where the chairs used the WG document process to run the show without much regard to the WG’s opinions.
Yes, I've seen that happen. But I've also seen something subtly different happen, which is to ask the WG for "consensus" before there's really been time for participants to have informed opinions, and then (sometimes) treat that "consensus" as if it were set in stone for the lifetime of the WG.
What I've seen repeated at many f2f WG meetings: "how many people have read the draft?" (a few hands raised). and later: "how many people support adoption of this document?" (many more hands raised). People don't even know what they're expressing an opinion on, but they want to get on with it!
IMO consensus is meaningless if obtained prematurely, just as consensus is meaningless if the WG leaders effectively dictate the outcome. I don't think we should be asking for "consensus" about anything on revision -00 documents. What seems more appropriate is that as a document evolves, there's increasing confidence in the WG that the document is approaching the criteria for its intended status. And any indications of the status of the document (to the extent that they're necessary) should reflect that degree of confidence or lack thereof. But I don't think it's helpful to be too formal about this, so rather than try to come up with some scheme to express that level of confidence, I recommend that we just wait until after WGLC to claim consensus of the WG.
In that case, I’d say: get new chairs! We don’t need to make the process capable of coping with this abuse.
It's pretty difficult to get chairs replaced. It looks bad for the people who appointed them. At best, you might get their AD to have a word with them.
Keith
