“do you support the adoption of this draft as a WG document.”
isn’t the right question; chairs should be asking:
“Does this draft meets the criteria for adoption in this WG”
I think it matters what you ask for in a “call for consensus”;
and much better to focus on the reasons and not individual’s
opinions about the action.
The criteria should include “in scope for the WG” but also
some recasting of the criteria of RFC 2418 section 2.1; here’s
a rough cut:
“Criteria for adoption of new work in an existing working group"
* Is the work within the scope of the charter of the group?
(Some “catch-all” groups have broad scope, others more narrow.)
- Are the goals specific and reasonably achievable, and achievable
within a reasonable time frame?
- Is the level of effort required (based on an estimate of
the risks and urgency of the work) consistent with the
working group’s schedule?
- Does the topic of the new work overlap with those of another
working group? If so, are there sufficient reasons to
take on the work and the coordination required?
- Is there sufficient interest (within the working group and
the IETF as a whole) in the new work’s topic,
with enough people willing to expend the effort to
produce the desired result (e.g., a protocol specification)?
- Quality work require considerable effort, including management
of process (e.g., a “document shepherd”), editing (document
editors), and review by the expected community of use.
The interest must be broad enough that the work could not be
seen as merely the activity of a single vendor.
- Is there enough expertise within the working group in the
work’s topic, and are those people interested in contributing
to the work?
- Does a base of interested consumers (end-users) appear to exist
for the planned work? Consumer interest can be measured by
participation of end-users within the IETF process, as well as by
less direct means.
- Does the IETF have a reasonable role to play in the determination
of the technology? There are many Internet-related technologies
that may be interesting to IETF members but in some cases the IETF
may not be in a position to effect the course of the technology in
the "real world". This can happen, for example, if the technology
is being developed by another standards body or an industry
consortium.
- Are all known intellectual property rights relevant to the
proposed work issues understood?
- Is the proposed work plan an open IETF effort or is it an attempt
to "bless" non-IETF technology where the effect of input from IETF
participants may be limited?
- Is there a good understanding of any existing work that is
relevant to the topics that the proposed working group is to
pursue? This includes work within the IETF and elsewhere.
- Does the work overlap with known work in another
standards body, and if so is adequate liaison in place?
Working group members are encouraged to express opinions about
these questions, so the working group chair may determine
if there is rough consensus that the work being proposed meets
the criteria for adoption.