That was most definitely the purpose of my last +1. My intend wasn't "me too", but a shorthand for not rewriting exactly what Jan had said.
I'd advise we keep the process management in the hands of the chairs. Tom > On Apr 19, 2014, at 12:23 PM, David Meyer <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 3:51 AM, Jamal Hadi Salim <[email protected]> wrote: >> Folks, >> >> No offense intended, but can we please have something a little more >> profound than a +1 when >> agreeing or disagreeing? >> All i can see in my head when someone says +1 is: >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_j9QeUoPOi4 >> >> I think a +1 should complete with "because ...." > > Thank you for your opinion but I trust my that my colleagues are > capable of expressing their support (or lack there of) in the way that > want to. In addition, given the breadth and depth of this thread (and > associated history) I don't see the need to recapitulate the arguments > made here in order to agree (or disagree) with the stated direction. > > --dmm > >> >> cheers, >> jamal >> >> _______________________________________________ >> i2rs mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs > > _______________________________________________ > i2rs mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs > _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
