On 2/25/2013 11:16 AM, Mary Barnes wrote:
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Jari Arkko
<jari(_dot_)arkko(_at_)piuha(_dot_)net> wrote:
Agree with what John, Brian, and others have said. FWIW, at times - particularly with
documents having some controversy - the ADs are left wondering what the silent majority
is thinking. So in some cases the private messages to the AD in question or to the IESG
are helpful. And while "+1" is usually bad form, indicating that you've done a
thorough review and found no issues is appreciated. (Or better yet, that you intend to
put this technology into your own use.)
[MB] It's not clear to me why you think +1 is bad form. I interpret
+1 to mean that an individual agrees with the
assessment/input/comments of the email to which they +1.
During an actual discussion, a +1 often conveys plenty of information.
During a Last Call, the core requirement is to establish the substance
of benefits and concerns. As such, pro forma statements are just too
easy to assure informed support (or non-support.) In this context, a +1
is often more like voting and possibly can be like ballot-box stuffing...
IMO, during a Last Call, people need to say /why/ they are in favor or
against and the why needs to be about the substance of functionality,
performance, operations, and/or the like.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net