My main conclusion for the moment is that Last Call comments should indicate first of all a definite Support or Oppose for the decision at hand if they are to be counted for or against consensus.
I'm not going to state a position, which means that you should not count me as either for or against the proposal. Keith On Sep 2, 2011, at 6:31 PM, Jari Arkko wrote: > First, I'm in full agreement with Ross. > > Second, for the record and as a response to Keith, my read of the discussion > on the last call was the biggest group of responses said that we should move > forward with the draft. There were two smaller groups, those with a clear > objection and those with roughly a "no-objection" or "it does not cause harm" > opinion (and a group who seemed to discuss orthogonal issues and not respond > to the question). I could of course have made mistakes in this determination, > but I thought it was rough (perhaps very rough) consensus. > > Of course, it gets more interesting if you start thinking about the reasons > why people wanted to move forward. Keith's latest e-mail has interesting > theories about those. I don't think anyone thinks this is the priority #1 > process fix for the IETF. For me, cleaning cruft from the IETF process RFCs > is a big reason for supporting this work. And I must admit that we seem to be > in a place where its very, very hard to make _any_ process RFC changes. > Getting one done, even if its a small change would by itself be useful, IMO. > Finally, I think two levels are enough. > > Jari > > On 03.09.2011 00:34, Keith Moore wrote: >> (iii) Any consensus that a 2 step process is better than a 3 step process. >> > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
