Subject: [abfab] clarification on WG adoption policy

From: Klaas Wierenga <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 10:41:54 +0100

Hi all,

There was a question raised as to what the WG-chairs policy for adoption
as WG documents was, given that we accepted the use-cases and diameter
draft without explicit consensus by the WG. So just to clarify, we have
decided to assume consensus to accept as WG documents those documents
that are both:

- - explicitly listed as deliverables in the charter
- - have WG consensus on the document editor

All other drafts will have to go through the normal consensus proces.

Hope this clarifies our position (and has the consensus of the WG ;-)

Klaas

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 07:10:37 -0500

>>>>> "Klaas" == Klaas Wierenga <[email-masked]> writes:

    Klaas> Hi all, There was a question raised as to what the WG-chairs
    Klaas> policy for adoption as WG documents was, given that we
    Klaas> accepted the use-cases and diameter draft without explicit
    Klaas> consensus by the WG. So just to clarify, we have decided to
    Klaas> assume consensus to accept as WG documents those documents
    Klaas> that are both:

This certainly seems productive to me.  It does mean that we'll have to
either have a call fairly early on in the lifecycle of a doc like the
usecases document to confirm there's a presumption of consensus or not
have that presumption.

The issue comes up if we cannot get consensus to change a document.  If
there is a presumption of consensus, the fact that you cannot get
consensus to change means that you're left with the existing text.  If
there is no such presumption--for example, when the WG adopts a document
unseen without discussion of the text either during the chartering
process or later--then you're stuck if you cannot get consensus either
to make the change or to agree to the existing text.

Note that what we're doing here is reasonably common in the security
area even if not so common say in the Internet or routing area.

--Sam

---

From: Leif Johansson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 13:13:53 +0100

> to make the change or to agree to the existing text.

Right - we (the chairs) have to be cluefull enough to detect a possibly
contentious submission and not accept it outright. We'll do our very best!

	Cheers Leif