RE: WG Adoption of an I-D / Procon 2418 bis: Updated text for section 8.2

(PROCON list copied, IAB dropped, further discussions should probably
go to PROCON exclusively)

Agreed, although I see one or two contradictions inherent in WG
adoption.  If the idea is that WGs "adopt" a document in order to
start working on it:

* couldn't one claim that discussion of whether a document should be
adopted is out of scope... until it is adopted?  "MAY formally adopt"
does not seem to me to solve that problem, just to add questions
about what happens if they don't and what value adoption (or the lack
thereof) actually has.

* if a WG is looking at a problem but is presented with two (or more)
alternate approaches to solving it, it is reasonable to adopt both
(all) of those documents with the expectation of discarding one or
more later?  "candidate for publication..." may argue against that...
or not, depending on how seriously the WG and the community take
candidacy.

While I think Andrew's text is an improvement and that it definitely
does not make things worse, it feels like either some additional
effort is needed here or that we should be remembering both the
occasional advantages of some procedural vagueness and our old
principle that every WG, and especially every Area, may be different
than others.

    john


--On Monday, April 27, 2026 15:09 +0100 Adrian Farrel
<[email protected]> wrote:

> That's nice text, Andrew.
> 
>  
> 
> From: Andrew Campling <[email protected]> 
> Sent: 27 April 2026 13:37
> To: Salz, Rich <[email protected]>; Brian E Carpenter
> <[email protected]>; [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: WG Adoption of an I-D 
> 
>  
> 
> I'm not convinced that the text as worded is sufficiently clear
> that (rough) consensus is not required prior to WG adoption of a
> draft and propose the following.   
> 
>  
> 
> Working Groups MAY formally adopt an Internet-Draft to indicate
> that it is being considered as a candidate for publication as an
> RFC. The main difference between a draft owned by an individual and
> one adopted by a working group is that the adoption process hands
> over change control to the working group.  Once a document is
> adopted, Document Editors are tasked with documenting the consensus
> of the Working Group.
> 
>  
> 
> Adoption of a draft is the starting point for the working group to
> work on the document, with no suggestion that there is agreement on
> its content at the point of adoption.  Working group chairs MAY
> adopt a draft if they believe there is sufficient interest in the
> topic covered by the draft; there is no requirement to establish
> rough consensus from the working group for the adoption of a draft.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Andrew
> 
>  
> 
> From: Salz, Rich <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > 
> Sent: 27 April 2026 13:12
> To: Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]> >; [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>
> 
> Cc: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> 
> Subject: Re: Complaint to IAB regarding a declaration of consensus
> to adopt a non-hybrid draft
> 
>  
> 
> *	Yes, although I now wonder whether we should also underline that
> adopt != agree.
> 
>  
> 
> I think it's implied by the current text, but if you want to make
> it more explicit, something like "adoption is the starting point
> for the WG to work on the draft."
>