Discussion != want-to-work-on-the-topic /as
On 08/11/2012 10:54, Murphy, Sandra wrote: >>> Calls for adoption are not (supposed) to discuss content. >> >> Thanks for that clarification. The IETF is a deliberative body, and I was >> under the impression that discussion at any point in the process, though >> not optimal, was acceptable. I did not realize SIDR had deviated. > > I did not say discussion was prohibited. That "supposed" is as in > "supposedly". > > Calls for adoption are to indicate interest in working on a topic. The > intent of a call for adoption is not consensus on the content. Review of the > content is not the purpose of a call for adoption. > > I know I've said something like this before in calls for adoption. This > should not be a surprise. > > --Sandy > ________________________________________ > From: Andy Newton [a...@arin.net] > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 10:41 AM > To: Murphy, Sandra; Christopher Morrow > Cc: Alexey Melnikov; sidr@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [sidr] WG acceptance call for draft-ymbk-rpki-grandparenting > > On 11/8/12 9:57 AM, "Murphy, Sandra" <sandra.mur...@sparta.com> wrote: > >>> Calls for adoption are not (supposed) to discuss content. > > Thanks for that clarification. The IETF is a deliberative body, and I was > under the impression that discussion at any point in the process, though > not optimal, was acceptable. I did not realize SIDR had deviated. > >> Are you sure you are not thinking of wglc, where consensus on the content >> is needed? > > I'm pretty sure I understand the difference between WGLC and wg document > acceptance. What I am uncertain about is the criteria for working group > document acceptance in SIDR. > >> And I said it generated "a first storm of discussion", not "interest". > > So, is "a fire storm of discussion" the threshold for document acceptance? > If a document fails to generate such a storm, will it not be accepted? > Since ROVER did generate a storm, will you be accepting it as a working > group document? Again, I'm trying to determine the criteria upon which the > chairs accept a document as a working group item. I do find "a fire storm > of discussion" to be a unique threshold. > > I'll note that you did say, "Nothing like actively working on a topic to > demonstrate interest in working on the topic." Hence my confusion. > > -andy > > _______________________________________________ > sidr mailing list > sidr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr > _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list sidr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr