On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 16:42:30 -0400 Barry Leiba <[email protected]> wrote: >Mike says... >> Dave CROCKER wrote: >>>>> Based on Pasi's comments, I had thought we were going the RFC route. >>> >>> Well, he has a preference for /only/ going that route, but he can't >>> actually veto our issuing the Errata under the Errata mechanism. Anyone can >>> post anything they want under the Errata mechanism. Some pretty silly stuff >>> has gotten posted, over the years. >> >> I believe that what Dave is suggesting is an end run around the IESG. >> In which case, I suggest that the working group insist on s/our/my/g; >> above so that it has similar status. > >Mike, I take what you're saying to mean that you don't think the >working group is behind "an end run around the IESG", and that the >errata should not be saying that it is. > >What path we take to publish the errata beyond the ID that it is now, >and whether the WG is behind publishing it without Pasi's (or the >IESG's) approval, are things we'll be discussing in San Francisco and >on the mailing list. I hope that when we leave SF we'll have most of >the answer to these, which answer we'll confirm on the mailing list. > >I think we need the high-bandwidth discussion, with Pasi in the room >and responding, to get this point resolved in a way that doesn't leave >everyone waving scimitars at everyone else. We need to be discussing >things productively as we go into final processing of ADSP and into >4871bis and Draft Standard consideration. (I'm going to try to get a >conference call set up and use Skype and a microphone to allow remote >participants to talk. I know we've failed at that before, but I want >to try again.) > >So while I'm on the cooperation and productivity bit.... >To everyone: Please say what you mean calmly and clearly, so there's >less chance of misunderstanding or the taking of offense where none >was meant. And please don't mean offense, either, of course. "Digs", >snarkiness, and passive-aggressiveness won't keep us moving forward. >
Then in the spirit of plain speaking: I do think that the current draft attempts to alter IETF consensus via the erata process in a way that is inappropriate. While I think that Mike's objection was formulated in a way that unfortunately strucutred around personality, I agree that the content to which he was referring should be dropped from an eratum and addressed when the RFC is revised. Scott K _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
