Robert, > Actually no. If you go back and look at the record, I think you'll see > that there was much more support for a change than for no change. Just > re-read the messages and see. The best the chairs could come up with > was "no consensus to change the doc". Nb: not "consensus against > changing the doc." As I recall it, just about the only real opposition > (actually stated on the list) to changing this came from you...
> (I don't know, obviously, but it is possible that the chairs then > believed that they couldn't change the doc, because attempting to specify > something that an IESG member doesn't like, or not to specify something > that they do like, can cause a doc to get held at "discuss" in the IESG > forever...) If you believe there is some sort of process problem here, there are appropriate channels for raising such issues. Wondering whether there may be an issue here while at the same time not actually raising the issue is not helpful, IMO. > Incidentally, I sent the first message on this thread to the IESG (only). > Since then, it has been between us, with cc's going to both the IESG > and the WG. But it has never been made clear whether in this small > exchange you've been speaking on behalf of the IESG, or just making > your own personal arguments. Which? To be clear, I'm speaking for myself, as one of the INT ADs, and the Area Advisor for this WG in particular. The other ADs, who have been cc'ed on this thread, will form their own opinions I'm sure. I chose to cc my original response to your note back to the ipng mailing list as a small step in having the IESG be more transparent. Thomas -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
