tom petch <daedulus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Indeed, and I see the WG Chair as having more influence in this matter
> than the ADs who come and go more often in my experience. Also, I see
> the WG style as a major influence. Some WG Chair say there has been no
> response to WGLC so the I-D will be forwarded to the IETF. Other WG
> Chair say there has been no response so the I-D will NOT be forwarded.
> To me, both are correct. It is the house style of the WG which AD may
> or may not come across in their own WG.
I think that in both cases the WG chairs ought to review RFC7282.
I think that WG chairs are responsible for judging consensus.
A draft which has received significant discussion, even if not during WGLC,
could be ready. I abhor "as the author I +1", as it leads to no useful
information in my opinion.
I've seen WG chairs complain that even the authors didn't +1, and frankly,
they shouldn't have to.
WG chairs need to structure all consensys calls with a deadline, and a
default action if there is no dissension. That could well be negative:
"The WG chairs have seen significant objection to draft foo-bar,
however, it is unclear if the objections stand given the latest
changes. Please post within two weeks if you have changed your mind,
otherwise, the WG will abandon the document on YYYYMMDD."
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
