At Wed, 7 Oct 2009 17:22:09 -0400, David A. Bryan wrote: > > 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?
As I stated, I intended to send comments today, which seems well within the bounds of "at least a week." > 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. Let's recap: - You posted a consensus call with a vague deadline of "at least a week" - After slightly less than a week, you declared consensus. - I objected that it was premature. At this point, you had the option of just saying "oops, I guess we don't have consensus" and waiting for my review and whatever discussion ensued. Instead, you opted to get defensive, insist that it wasn't premature, assert that you had "allowed over a week on this topic, and generally blow a lot of smoke about how I hadn't commented in time. It was in that context that I observed that you hadn't even waited a full week. Is it nitpicky? Sure. But if you're going to announce vague deadlines and then treat them as hard, that's what you need to expect. > 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. I agree that there is not currently a process error. However, if this document is adopted as a WG document based on silence rather than affirmative consensus, that would be a process error. -Ekr _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
