Kent, I may be old fashioned but the IETF used to determine consensus on mailing lists (and as an experienced WG chair I assume you know ways to do that). Perhaps you can simply change the wording in the (draft) minutes and we move on.
Thanks, /js On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 03:46:13PM +0000, Kent Watsen wrote: > > Hi Juergen, > > > Well, statements like "the WG agrees" are problematic for things that > > have not been discussed on the mailing list. Perhaps it is the people > > attending the interim agreed? Well, I can't tell, I have not been > > there... > > Maybe but… > - it was an official Interim meeting (not just a design team) > - the subject of this email indicates “Draft Minutes”. > - the body of the email says "Please report any updates needed here." > > Clearly the email is the “confirmation" on the list, and hence it didn't > seem wrong to predictively say "the WG agrees”. > > That said, I wonder who all constitute the “working group”. Does it make > sense to extend that label to folks who don’t participate? The “netmod” > mailing list has 410 members, but it’s hard to imagine the “working group” > being anywhere close to that. > > Kent > > -- Jürgen Schönwälder Constructor University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
