On Mar 14, 2008, at 10:17 AM, Spencer Dawkins wrote: > I really AM thinking that RELOAD-04 will be adopted as a working > group item > after it is submitted (under whatever name is finally chosen). > > Is anyone expecting something else to happen? >
Since it is my apparent self-appointed role to point out the elephants in the room . . . There are people who feel that RELOAD is being "strong-armed" (coerced by people with procedural authority) into place. I've personally heard this perception expressed by several working group participants, even though I don't have the same perception. This sort of problem happens anytime a candidate draft has contributor support from a chair, area director, or area technical advisor (and RELOAD has all three!). The WG's only counter is to be meticulous about the application of process and propriety with respect to such a draft. The relative unreadability of the hastily merged RELOAD draft makes comparing and discussing the merits/demerits of the proposal against alternatives difficult. Strong pressure from the chairs, ADs, and area technical adviser to adopt the draft in the light of this "difficult to compare and discuss" condition aggravate the perception of being "strong-armed" I believe that a more mature draft will eliminate the argument that debate on the technical issues is too difficult. So once we have a better draft, people will either have good technical arguments against the proposal or will be willing to accept the proposal as a consensus position. In the end, I expect that the RELOAD draft will be accepted as the WG baseline document. But we need to more-than-fairly exercise the process to get there if we want the working group to continue to move smoothly. -- Dean _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
