Subject: Re: WG chair use of the ID-tracker: Proposed tool addition

From: Daniel Park <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 18:42:50 +0000 (GMT)

Hi, 

One question on the 02-version:

   Defined WG States:

   *  Candidate WG Document
      This document is under consideration for becoming a working group
      document.
      (R-009)

How to guage folks consensus before straw poll, and who is 
responsible for this judgement ? by chair only ? 

For example:

o X-Document:   WG Status: Candidate WG Document

What next ? No one can submit another document wrt.
the same subject ? Or strong battle is coming ? In my
feeling, it seems not easy for other guys to work for
the same subject once seeing the WG Status: Candidate
WG Document since this document is already under
consideration for becoming a WG adoption.

Daniel (Soohong Daniel Park)
Mobile Convergence Laboratory. SAMSUNG Electronics

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 20:02:50 +0100

Hi,

> responsible for this judgement ? by chair only ? 

My thoughts on this was that this is a state which is available
to the chair to indicate that someone has asked that a document
be made a WG document.  It does not imply any consensus at all,
and it does not imply any precedence or selection.  It's simply
a way to flag in the tracker that somebody has asked for a
document to be considered for adoption.

> the same subject ?

In line with the above, no, not at all - having this indication
in the tracker doesn't change any of our processes at all.

> Or strong battle is coming ? In my

Umm.  Should this maybe be an annotation, rather than a state?
Would that be better?  Thoughts?

	Henrik

---

From: David Harrington <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 15:25:36 -0500

Hi,

I have no problem with it being a state.
If there are going to be multiple submissions, they will necessarily
have different internet-draft names. I doubt most WG members will
bother looking in the ID tracker to decide whether to submit their own
draft, so I don't see a problem with a draft being in this state
already. 

If having a draft marked WG candiadte is s all it takes to dissuade
some people from submitting drafts, then maybe they don't deserve to
submit drafts ;-)

Personally, if I care about a topic and somebody else submits
something as a candidate, that might get me to post my candidate that
much faster.

dbh 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henrik Levkowetz [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 2:03 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: WG chair use of the ID-tracker: Proposed tool addition
> 
> Hi,
>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 23:07:10 +0100

> document to be considered for adoption.

And it's nothing new; this is a natural state today, and the concern
Daniel raises applies today, as soon as a WG Chair asks the WG whether
to consider a certain draft. As always, it is indeed the Chair's
judgement to say that the candidate has been adopted by consensus.
I don't thing adding a state in the tracker changes the reality.

     Brian