Hi Melinda, You are the chair for this WG, and to a degree you can set the rules for how WGLC works in your WG. I respectfully disagree with your position.
Having been an editor for documents where my opinion about technical choices was in the rough, I still stated support for publication of the document because I felt it represented WG consensus, and wasn't "broken". Having been a co-author for documents where I did not do the final editing passes on the document, I read the updated document and supported the document as ready for publication. Having been a co-author where I did do the final editing passes because the other editors were called away for day-job responsibilities, I appreciated that they read the document and expressed support for the latest version as named co-authors (even if they might have felt they were in the rough). Having been a chair, one of the biggest problems can sometimes be getting any responses at all to WGLC. I appreciated getting responses, even if they were from co-authors of the documents. I think it *does* have meaningful content to say that one supports the document as a co-author/editor. I agree that such statements would be MUCH more useful if they stated "I read the document and believe it represents WG consensus" or "I read the document and believe it is ready for publication". I think we should educate people that that type of statement of support is far more valuable than one that just says "I support the document". I think we should NOT educate people that "if you are a co-author, then a statement of your opinion is worthless". Chairs are in the unenviable position of determining whether a co-author's statement of support is based on actual support for the reviewed document or some type of (inappropriate) political statement of support, and chairs have ti decide whether to consider such statement as part of determining consensus. I do not think chairs should abdicate those responsibilities by simply deciding all co-authors' statements of support should be ignored - ask for a more detailed statement if "I support the document" does not seem informative enough. But, as I said, you are chairing this WG, and if that's your preference about how this WG should operate, then so be it. David Harrington [email protected] +1-603-828-1401 > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Melinda Shore > Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 5:51 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [OPSAWG] "Support" in working group last calls > > Over the past year or so there's been an increase in > the number of people responding to working group last > calls with "I support as a co-author." This is a > request to stop. > > By the time a document enters working group last call, > presumably the authors are familiar with its contents > and don't have serious disagreements with them. Because > "I support as a co-author" introduces little-to-no > new information it's difficult to conclude that the > reason that it's being posted has something to do with > voting. We don't vote. (One hopes the reason isn't > that the co-author has just read the document for the > first time and finds it agreeable). > > The IETF makes decisions through a process of rough > consensus, and this doesn't mean counting a show of > hands, counting "yes" postings, or counting "I support > this as a co-author" posts. Decisions are made on > the basis of technical discussion and agreement with > the technical contents of a document. This decision- > making process can be confusing to people who haven't > worked in consensus-oriented environments before, and > if you haven't already read Pete Resnick's internet draft > on consensus processes in the IETF, you may want to take > a look at it. It's well-written and does a good job > of capturing what it is that we're doing when we have > last call on a document or ask other questions of > working group participants. That document is here: > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-resnick-on-consensus/ > > In the meantime, when we have last call on a document, > the co-authors should avoid posting their opinion on > whether or not they support publication unless they take > the probably surprising position of not supporting > publishing the document. In that case they should definitely > speak up. > > Many thanks, > > Melinda > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
