On just a couple of process points:
On 1 Apr 2025, at 22:30, Dave Crocker wrote:
When calling to have a wg adopt a draft, it is worth reviewing
comments on that draft beforehand
The draft version that was called for adoption is drastically different
than the draft on which you commented, and I haven't endeavored to go
through point-by-point to see which comments apply to which of the
current documents. It's also not clear to me which of your comments
amount to "this will need to be corrected" and which ones amount to
"this indicates this document is not appropriate for adoption, even as a
framework that will require a lot of corrections." It would probably be
useful to identify the latter sort (if any) in response to the call for
adoption.
Apologies for not responding to this semi-official response to my
unofficial review of the draft in January.
I'm not clear what the terms "semi-official" and "unofficial" mean in
this context.
I will note that Allen's was the only response to my detailed
review. And it was only to my summary comments.
On the average, that speaks poorly both for group engagement and for
advocate engagement.
I can think of other reasons why a long detailed pre-chartering review
of an early pre-chartering version of a draft might not have gotten a
great deal of response, none of them having anything to do with
participants' engagement in the work of the WG. I don't think we need to
dwell on this at the moment.
pr
--
Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best
_______________________________________________
Ietf-dkim mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
