Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> OLD:
> • Prior to accepting any Standards Track document for development, there
> must be a commitment to implement the resulting proposed standard from at
> least two independent parties, as recorded on a related IETF mailing list.
> NEW #1:
> • Prior to accepting any Standards Track document for development, there
> must be an indication from at least two independent parties that they
> intend to implement the resulting proposed standard, as recorded on a
> related IETF mailing list.
> NEW #2:
> • Prior to accepting any Standards Track document for development, there
> must be an indication from at least two independent parties that they are
> interested in implementing the resulting proposed standard, as recorded on
> a related IETF mailing list.
Hi, I objected to this adoption criteria when you first posted a few weeks
ago. I think it's an unreasonably high criteria for WG adoption. It goes
entirely in the wrong direction in my opinion for WG adoption criterion.
BUT: I had no problem with applying an IDR-like criteria for getting through WGLC.
Certainly email is as critical as BGP.
I don't see much different between #1/#2. "intend" vs "interested"
I also felt that that we were trying to micromanage future WG chairs and ADs,
and that the problem being addressed is really a management, supervision and
trust issue. Murray disagreed: citing some case where there was significant
disagreement about what a charter said when ADs and WG chairs had changed.
I've read through this thread, and I will say that I do not feel as strongly
as many others seem to.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
