I agree with Dean on several points. One difference - I am not concerned that the ADs might be pushing (we have both RAI ADs in this room plus more ADs than most WG meetings, so anything suspicious that I'm missing is happening in front of witnesses).
Like Dean, I don't have concerns that this draft is being strong-armed, but like Dean, I also have a sense from listening to people that (for example) it wasn't even worth getting up at the mike and saying "I think this other proposal should be considered". I especially agree that a clearer, revised draft will make it easier to agree that we are doing the right thing if we do what it looks like we are going to do. I believe that the short interval between IETF 70 and IETF 71 forced the slamming merge that we saw, and I believe the slamming merge output explains the rest of the problematic situation. No harm, no foul, but we need to LOOK as "clear" (procedurally) as we are. In summary... this was only a small elephant, but it is an elephant. It could even be a nice pet elephant, but we need to make sure that we don't trip over it while walking through the room. Thanks, Spencer From: "Dean Willis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 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
