On 3/17/24 16:35, Carsten Bormann wrote:
I hope they don't set up rules like that, and I hope their ADs discourage them setting up rules like that.I’ve sometimes run into people who think we first need to establish working group consensus to merge a PR (*). WG chairs are of course free to set up rules like that,
IMO the author/editor has an important role in figuring out how to craft text that earns and builds consensus while still being technically sound, and questions like "approve this PR yes/no?" aren't ideal for that. ESPECIALLY when the question is framed by the PR submitter and put to the group in that form, bypassing the author/editor.
yes.but then I think we don’t even need working group consensus to submit an updated I-D — that is exactly done so we have an efficient way to check whether the working group agrees with the direction proposed by the I-D authors.
IMO PRs should be taken as concrete suggestions to the authors/editors, nothing more, with no expectation that they'll be used intact or even at all.
Keith
