I think it's worth looking at what draft-resnick-on-consensus
says about the nature of rough consensus. It tells us why
reasoned objections are more important than "+1" messages
(or "-1" messages for that matter).
By the same token, it seems that a reasoned message saying
why something is important and valuable would help the IESG,
if the document is on a somewhat obscure topic. However, as
John Leslie pointed out, that isn't strictly necessary, since
silence is equivalent to saying "no objection".
All IMHO, YMMV, of course.
Brian
On 23/02/2013 00:46, Warren Kumari wrote:
Hi there,
So, I have an etiquette question[0].
When a draft comes up for IETF LC, you get the standard:
"The IESG has received a request from the Funny Orange Orangutang WG (foo) to
consider the following document: 'Orangutans Considered Harmful"
<draft-ietf-foo-dangerous-orangutangs-04.txt>
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing lists by 1970-01-01."
So, if I have issues with the draft, I know to send them to the list -- but
what if I simply want to show support?
Normally I figure that if the draft is the product of a WG there is already
demonstrated support, and so I don't bother cluttering up the list with "+1,
me too, FTW!, etc." but is this actually the right thing to do? What if I
really think the draft is important / useful; is it appropriate then? Or, if
I think that the draft may not pass otherwise? Is there any difference if it
is not a WG product?
What would Miss Manners say?
W
[0]: Asking etiquette questions on -discuss seems only marginally saner than
asking dining or travel questions on -attendees , but… :-P
--
"Let's just say that if complete and utter chaos was lightning, he'd be the
sort to stand on a hilltop in a thunderstorm wearing wet copper armour and
shouting 'All gods are bastards'."
-- Rincewind discussing Twoflower (Terry Pratchett, The Colour of Magic)