Sorry, I wasn’t able to task switch to editing the document yesterday with other work obligations.
Best, Kathleen Sent from my mobile device > On Feb 28, 2018, at 9:45 AM, Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 11:23 AM, Warren Kumari <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 3:28 PM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Hi, Benoit, >> > >> > On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 2:15 PM, Benoit Claise <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> The way I see it, we're going to fix comments forever. >> > >> > >> > Right. But my concern was that the text that we're reading for an up/down >> > vote can change after we read it, so I should be tracking the proposed text >> > changes. >> >> [ Updating in the middle of the thread as this seems the logical entry point >> ] >> >> ... so, we are not updating the current version (we wanted 7 days for >> people to read it), and so will be (I believe) balloting on that -- >> but, just like any other document we ballot on, the RAD will pay >> attention to comments received and "Do the right thing". >> >> I believe that EKRs comments are helpful, and Kathleen hopes to >> address / incorporate them before the call. I will be putting both the >> current (being balloted on) and updated version in GitHub (for a >> friendly web enabled diff) so that people can see what the final >> version will actually look like. >> So, I guess we are formally balloting (unless the DISCUSS is cleared) >> on the text as written (-22), but with an understanding that the AD >> will make it look like the version in GitHub before taking off the >> Approved, Revised ID needed / AD follow-up flag. >> >> Confused yet? :-P > > Hi Warren, > > Thanks for this note. > > It's too bad that we aren't able to see the proposed revisions at this > point, but I appreciate your commitment to working through the > remaining issues, and I think we should be able to reach a > satisfactory resolution. In the interest of not forcing everyone to > read the document by tomorrow, I'm going to change my ballot to > Abstain. > > Best, > -Ekr > > > > > > >> >> >> > >> > That doesn't seem up/down. It seems like every other draft I've balloted on >> > as an AD :-) >> > >> >> Indeed. >> W >> >> > Spencer >> > >> >> >> >> And we need to resolve this one before the current ADs step down. >> >> >> >> Regards, Benoit >> >> >> >> This may not be my week, when it comes to comprehension. At least, I'm 0 >> >> for 2 so far today. >> >> >> >> Are we still tuning text in this draft? >> >> >> >> https://www.ietf.org/standards/process/iesg-ballots/ says that the >> >> alternate balloting procedure is an up/down vote - we either agree to >> >> publish, or agree to send a document off for rework. >> >> >> >> If we're still resolving comments, one can imagine that we'd get to a >> >> one-Discuss situation, or even no Discusses, and wouldn't be doing an >> >> Alternate Ballot on Thursday. >> >> >> >> I don't object to resolving comments (actually, I find that lovely), but I >> >> don't know what we're doing. >> >> >> >> I've never seen the alternate balloting procedure executed (either as IESG >> >> scribe or as an IESG member), so maybe I don't get it, and other people >> >> have >> >> different expectations. >> >> >> >> Spencer >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> OPSAWG mailing list >> >> [email protected] >> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > OPSAWG mailing list >> > [email protected] >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad >> idea in the first place. >> This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing >> regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair >> of pants. >> ---maf >
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
