On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
I'm not mischaracterizing your point at all. Honestly, did you intent to comment in those 9 minutes? I stated at least a week. There was not serious discussion (other than one post in favor of adoption, and no objections) for several days, so it seemed that since the issue was settled, and the week had passed, it was time to move on. >> >> 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. I have again asked the list for input on the concern you raised that the document doesn't reflect the changes requested. Do they feel this document has changed sufficiently to meet the requirements for the hum for adoption Brian called in Stockholm? The authors felt they had made the changes, and asked the chairs to verify this on list. The only comment was a positive. You have objected now, so I asked the list again for their thoughts on adoption. As I am sure you are well aware, consensus can be changed, or heck, the group can have consensus to un-adopt a document months later, decide that an editorial team isn't responsive to the WG and choose a different document in it's place, etc. As of now, the question has been posed to the list again. Do they feel the new document has made sufficient changes to meet the intent of the WG's comment in Stockholm, and feel the document should be adopted? As you have objected, we'll declare that no consensus has been reached yet, and we'll see what the thoughts are on list, but there is no process error here. David (as chair) > -Ekr > _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
