>>>>> "Dave" == Dave Crocker <dhc2@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Dave> Sam, 2. The AD raising the Discuss must post the details of
Dave> their concern to the mailing list targeted to that
Dave> specification
>> The proto team has already decided on a conflicting approach:
>> the proto shepherd is ultimately responsible for collecting
>> discuss comments and forwarding them to the right list.
Dave> Here I was, thinking that proto was simply moving some
Dave> administrative details down to the working group, rather
Dave> than creating an enforced, protective barrier between an
Dave> individual with veto authority and the recipients of that
Dave> veto.
No, that's not what I said. I said that the proto shepherd is
responsible for sending the comment to the appropriate place. If the
add holding the discuss wants to send it to the mailing listthat's
fine. If the working group wants to send mail to the AD that's fine
too.
One of the reasons you might want to do things this way is that you
might have a bunch of related discusses that you want to send to the
mailing list all at once. I can think of other reasons the proto team
might not want to require the AD holding the discuss send the message
to the WG. I don't really care that much. My goal in writing to you
was to let you know that your proposal disagreed with something and to
suggest who you might want to talk to in order to resolve that
disagreement.
I'm not on the proto team; this particular issue is not something I
care that much about either way.
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf