Hi Mike,
On 07/07/2022 17:21, Michael StJohns wrote:
On 7/7/2022 11:10 AM, Benno Overeinder wrote:
It helps us and the WG itself to prioritise WG activities and start a
regular WG call for adoption of a number of documents. We will share
the results of the poll with the WG and how to make an initial
selection of documents that will be included in the WG call for
adoption process. We currently have 6 drafts for which the authors
have asked WG adoption, but that is too much new work for the WG to
work on.
Any feedback on improving the process to prioritise work in the WG is
welcome.
All of that is a good and just reason to send out calls for adoption.
But the point of the previous messages was that the poll was not the way
to do that. Basically, making a poll choice without providing context
and an opportunity for discussion a) lacks transparency (in that when
the chairs make a decision, the WG has no basis on which to evaluate
that decision), b) lacks nuance (in that the choices provided do not
cover some shadings of what to do - e.g., not ready for consideration),
c) lacks WG participation (a discussion about a document gets us to a
better result than blind voting).
I see the points you are making but as we mentioned we will be sharing
and discussing the results of the poll, so for transparency of the
decision making process and WG participation in this it will be on the
WG mailing list. For your concerns wrt. the nuance there should be room
during this mailing list discussion.
If I read your concerns correctly, instead of 6 WG call for adoptions in
a short period (or in one go) we will have a phased WG call for
adoptions in the next month with 3 candidates and when the WG completes
current existing work, another batch of 2, 3 or 4 WG calls for adoption
will be issued. And an outcome of the call for adoption can be a
yes/no/not ready for consideration/..., as usual.
Conducting a survey (2 times now) has worked well over the past 1.5
years to prioritise finishing existing work and starting new work. Two
years ago we (as a WG) discussed how to manage the workload of the WG
and running a poll seemed to be one of the mechanisms to help with that.
The fact that the chairs did not respond to the original messages is
also a bit problematic.
Apologies for not responding to the original messages, but was in no way
intended to ignore them.
Regards,
-- Benno
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
