On Jun 13, 2014, at 2:26 AM, Lorenzo Colitti <[email protected]> wrote: > I vote for removing the text and returning the draft to the IESG as WG > consensus, and if the IESG is not happy with that, then ask them to explain > clearly what it is that they are worried about.
People have already made suggestions for how to fix the text, which I would like implemented. "The IESG" isn't asking for a change. Adrian has been trying to negotiate a change for several months, and that resulted in some text that was reluctantly agreed to, but that the chairs felt didn't reflect the working group consensus, which appears to have been a correct evaluation. The proposed text sucks, and is not what the IESG asked for. It is just text that was agreed to because the AD who raised the DISCUSS was tired of arguing. So blaming the IESG for the bad text and demanding that we do something to fix it isn't going to work. We don't know what the working group wants the text to mean. That's the problem. I asked the working group to think about this a little harder because I need your help. If your answer to this request for help is "no," then you are basically asking _me_ to take on this burden, and I can't. So please reconsider. As I said, we've already had some good suggestions. There is no reason why this has to be hard. _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
