On Sun, Jul 16, 2023 at 3:28 PM Joel Halpern <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Agreed. Design team decisions, of any kind of design team, are input to
the working group, not something the working group is required to adopt,
accept, or use.
I am not sure that All IETF WG chairs follow/present that concept. Also it will be hard to disagree with the DT decisions specially when excluded from their reasons of the decisions they made. It is not easy to track_information. Tracking data and tracking information and tracking reasons makes participants more intelligent, and not having ways of tracking makes participants out_of_translations. Why do they use close design_team anyway? It will make me just follow without questions, and I will blame the wrong process of closing/hiding details/trackers.
AB
Yours,
Joel
On 7/16/2023 9:26 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
> On 7/16/23 09:06, Joel Halpern wrote:
>
>> IETF procedures explicitly allow for open and closed dsign teams.
>> They also allow for self-formed teasm and teams appointed by WG
>> chairs. There is very little procedural requirement on them.
>> Presumably, since the work is intended to be contribution to the
>> IETF, the Note Well applies to design teams.
>>
>> IN my experience, closed design teams formed for a specific purpose
>> tend to work better than the alternatives. But different WGs and
>> different problems prompt different approaches.
>>
> While IETF does permit closed design teams, a danger of closed design
> teams is that they can, in practice, be used to coerce the WG into
> accepting poor decisions.
>
> Decisions made by a design team still require rough consensus from the
> mailing list. If the group is told by someone in authority (say the
> WG chair or document editor) that the design team's decisions are not
> negotiable or subject to revision, that's IMO a process violation.
>
> Keith
>
>
