I think it's worth looking at what draft-resnick-on-consensus says about the nature of rough consensus. It tells us why reasoned objections are more important than "+1" messages (or "-1" messages for that matter). By the same token, it seems that a reasoned message saying why something is important and valuable would help the IESG, if the document is on a somewhat obscure topic. However, as John Leslie pointed out, that isn't strictly necessary, since silence is equivalent to saying "no objection". All IMHO, YMMV, of course. Brian On 23/02/2013 00:46, Warren Kumari wrote: > Hi there, > > So, I have an etiquette question[0]. > > When a draft comes up for IETF LC, you get the standard: > "The IESG has received a request from the Funny Orange Orangutang WG (foo) to > consider the following document: 'Orangutans Considered Harmful" <draft-ietf-foo-dangerous-orangutangs-04.txt> > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits > final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the > ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 1970-01-01." > > So, if I have issues with the draft, I know to send them to the list -- but what if I simply want to show support? > > Normally I figure that if the draft is the product of a WG there is already demonstrated support, and so I don't bother cluttering up the list with "+1, me too, FTW!, etc." but is this actually the right thing to do? What if I really think the draft is important / useful; is it appropriate then? Or, if I think that the draft may not pass otherwise? Is there any difference if it is not a WG product? > > What would Miss Manners say? > > > W > [0]: Asking etiquette questions on -discuss seems only marginally saner than asking dining or travel questions on -attendees , but… :-P > -- > "Let's just say that if complete and utter chaos was lightning, he'd be the sort to stand on a hilltop in a thunderstorm wearing wet copper armour and shouting 'All gods are bastards'." > > -- Rincewind discussing Twoflower (Terry Pratchett, The Colour of Magic) > > >