At Wed, 7 Oct 2009 16:56:08 -0400, David A. Bryan wrote: > > Well, I'm not even going to justify ludicrous pedantry over 9 minutes > with a response...moving on to potentially substantive issues...
David, Of course, you're mischaracterizing my point, but what's actually ludicrous is you doing a consensus call with no firm deadline and then attempting to ignore feedback that arrives within a time period reasonably implied by your vague deadline. If you intend to be hard about deadlines, then they need to be clearly stated. > >> You never posted saying you > >> were reviewing, you have made no comments on list about the draft > >> since Stockholm. Bruce started a thread on the previous version way > >> back on July 25th, and you didn't comment. > > > > Because I had already made comments on the previous version during > > the meeting. > > While your points below are worth considering, this particular point > by itself is procedurally not relevant. What it's relevant to, David, is your argument that "Bruce started a thread on the previous version way back on July 25th, and you didn't comment." Comments don't go away just because they aren't repeated incessantly. > You of course are still welcome to make the same objections on list, > but it there is consensus, the fact you objected before the consensus > call in the room and make the same objection now doesn't lack of > consensus make. See > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dusseault-consensus-00 ... > > With those out of the way, the concern below is a potentially valid one: The problem here, David, is that you don't have consensus to accept this document in its current state. As I stated, there was consensus in the room to accept the document pending a particular set of changes. I claim those changes have not been made. Absent an affirmative showing on the list or in a meeting that there is consensus that those changes have in fact been made at this time, there simply is no showing of consensus to accept this document as-is and having it published as a WG document is a process error. Silence is not consent. -Ekr _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
