I'd like to raise another procedure issue: Who is quanified to support an I-D to be in the core discussion?
For example, my draft-ieft-idn-step has 13 supporters including me. Among the 13 there are 4 active participants speakers on the list. The rest choose to remain lurk now or not bother due to many reasons. I used to work off line on this, and is discouraged to continue working with people off line. While others were never posting any message, but it counted for voting. To speak about reasonable judgement on who's opinion can be counted for support is too vage for me to follow. In my judgement, all the 13 are quanlified to support the draft. Some people tell me, that they can not answer all the questions that may be raised, so they prefer to stay silent. Can the group comes up with better guide lines? Liana On Wed, 05 Dec 2001 11:01:04 -0500 Marc Blanchet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi, > James and I are proposing this agenda for the wg. This is a first > version, > please sent your comments to james and I. > Because we are late, I sent it to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'll update it > with your > comments. > > Marc. > > ============================================== > Proposed Agenda, v1.0 > > IDN wg meeting > MONDAY, December 10, 2001 > 1300-1500 Afternoon Sessions I > Grand D INT idn Internationalized Domain Name WG * > > Goal of this meeting: > build concensus on the remaining items for the architecture > > Agenda > 1. wg documents status: 15 min. > > 2. draft-ietf-idn-lsb-ace-02.txt: 10 min. > summary of wg electronic strawpoll and decision. > > 3. discussion on next steps for: > draft-ietf-idn-jpchar-01.txt > draft-ietf-idn-hangeulchar-00.txt > draft-ietf-idn-tsconv-02.txt > > TSCONV, Kenny Huang, 10 min. > How to handle tsconv/jpchar/hangeulchar, To be confirmed, 10 min. > Discussion and decision, 20 min. > > 4. draft-hall-dm-idns-00.txt > discussion on next steps, 10 min. > > 5. WG next steps, 10 min. > > >
