Brian,
Thanks for the clarification, very very useful.
Regards,
as
On 09/11/2012 11:42, Brian Dickson wrote:
>
>
>
>
> I'd like to note that in general, WG acceptance processes are a critical
> part of IETF processes.
>
> In particular, the WG consensus on adoption, is the one critical place
> in preventing "gaming the system".
>
> An adoption call should have three (or four) responses:
>
> Ready for Adoption
> Needs more work BEFORE Adoption
> Should not (never) be adopted
> Abstain/don't care
>
> The "needs more work" is the way that WG participants can hold
> authors/editors accountable for making requested changes.
>
> If a draft is accepted in its current state, then any promises by the
> authors to make changes are much like promises by politicians during
> election campaigns - not worth the paper they are written on.
>
> However, if the WG insists on changes BEFORE adoption, the reliance on
> promises goes away - which is a good thing.
>
> Any discussion on the content of a draft, which is prompted by a WG
> adoption request, SHOULD be taken by chairs as "Needs more work BEFORE
> Adoption".
>
> Since this does not seem to have been the case, please ask the WG to
> answer one of the four ways, explicitly.
>
> BTW:
>
> I believe that this draft should not be adopted in its current form (if
> ever).
>
> Brian
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
