On Mar 18, 2008, at 8:58 AM, Brian Rosen wrote: > Well, we do have to wait until the minutes are posted (coming very > soon I > hope). Usually, the language we use is "confirm" consensus on the > list. In > this case, we had no meeting consensus. I think it would be quite > unlikely > that there will be list consensus given the result of the hum in the > meeting. > > Now, if we do see list consensus in some direction, great. > > Just to be clear, in the meeting, there was no consensus to adopt > RELOAD-03 > as a working group item, and there was not even a proposal to adopt > any > other document. The sense of the room was to let the authors of > RELOAD-03 > do another revision, and then revisit the issue after that. "Sense > of the > room" means nothing, process-wise. >
The document as it is barely reflects the consensus of the authors, and it fails to communicate such to the wider working group. It's just not ready. People who might propose an alternative quite possibly don't understand enough of the document to be able to frame their alternative. I expect that most of the critical design goals of the working group will be met by the merged RELOAD proposal. I further expect most people that might propose an alternative will, in good conscience, be able to decide NOT to once they understand what's in RELOAD. I further believe that when we have a clear and readable document that we will reasonably be able to ask on-list for a consensus around that document. So, DON'T PANIC. Get the work done, and if it is as good as I expect it will be, consensus will appear. -- Dean _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
