Hey all, There is something funny about this whole situation:
Dean, in your mail you mention the following: > 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. If the draft is so unreadable and "not ready" (and there seems to be no argument about this) then how come it is the only candidate that is being seriously considered for adoption by the working group? > I expect that most of the critical design goals of the working group > will be met by the merged RELOAD proposal. I guess this answers my question and it would probably also explain most of the tension that has been discussed in this thread. People generally trust the authors of RELOAD to do a good job because of their background and reputation and because they have shown commitment to this group. I guess this is also the point that Hannes was making. I am not arguing about their ability to do so and I am actually quite positive that they won't fail. Just as Brian I was disappointed with the Philadelphia hums for pretty much the same reasons. I don't think that RELOAD has been strong-armed by the chairs, nor by the authors, so technically speaking I doubt there is anything procedurally wrong with the whole situation. However, we should stop pretending that everything went perfectly OK and that the current situation is the mere result of applying IETF rules. I think we would all agree (or at least I hope so) that the choices for the mergers that led to RELOAD-03 were not entirely technical and were greatly influenced by the relations between the authors of the participating proposals. Again, there's nothing technically wrong about this but it is probably not the most community friendly policy. I guess this is where all the frustration is coming from: if it all comes down to having a good reputation and IETF experience then why should newcomers contribute in the first place? Brian, I doubt there's any point in trying to convince everyone that the process respected IETF procedures, I don't think anyone is contesting this and insisting only makes things worse. There is also little need to explain how badly the WG needs to move on. The fact that authors of competing drafts did not ask that their proposals be considered as an alternative, proves that they (we) are already aware of that. However, it would probably be a good idea to try to understand what's causing the commotion and think of how not to get into it again. If the IETF is to remain a successful community effort then it is up to its current members to make sure it does. Cheers Emil > 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 > _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
