On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 2:49 PM, Dow Street <[email protected]> wrote: > b. that the polled definition is clear, but you think some other (clearly > defined) thing should be called a "locator" instead > c. that the consensus approach / process is insufficient, independent of > this particular definition
Hi Dow, I'm criticizing Tony because he described his definitions of "locator" and "identifier" as a group consensus when it was very obviously anything but. Let me put it this way: I can live with it If Tony goes back to the IAB and says, "For convenience, we voted to assign the following meanings to the words identifier and locator." I have little use for the definitions assigned, but I can find other words. What bugs the heck out of me is the prospect that Tony goes back to the IAB and says, "It is the consensus of the RRG that locator and identifier mean..." or "We determined that locator and identifier mean..." That'd be dishonest. It badly misrepresents the situation and it misrepresents my own participation in the process. Now, I don't agree with the definitions. I also think a real consensus process, while more difficult to accomplish, would be more helpful than a vote. But my tirade is about the misrepresentation of the vote and its results. It was a vote, not a consensus check, and the results do not reflect a general consensus of the group. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected] 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
