Hi Robin,

> Maybe your vision of an enlightened debate doesn't accord with that
> of others.  I have been trying to do the same thing and it seems you
> and I rarely agree about how to discuss things or about how to solve
> the routing scaling problem.  Other people appreciate my efforts to
> understand and discuss their proposals - so maybe my idea of how to
> debate things is shared more by other people than yours is.

That may well be.  Doesn't make it right, however.

>> I'm not expecting anyone to develop a recommendation.  I'm not expecting
>> anyone to be happy with it.
> Does this mean you are going to develop the recommendation?

Yes, that's on the co-chairs.

> My interpretation of this is that you and Lixia will write the
> recommendation and while you will read or listen to what people have
> to say about it, you won't promise to take notice of any of it or to
> alter your text according to the views expressed by RRG participants.

> In the past, you have stated your intention to achieve consensus on a
> recommendation.  Now I understand you don't intend to achieve or even
> test for consensus on the recommendation you and Lixia will prepare.

Yes, that changed.

>> Again, we've been trying to have that debate for three years.
> I believe you have not contributed much to the debate.

The feeling is mutual.

> You frequently requested we debate "architectures" - as if this was
> somehow different from proposals.  Yet I don't recall an instance of
> you leading by example with any such messages.

Not everything happens on the mailing list.

> I don't see how you could be sure of this if you haven't tried.

We've tried several times to simply agree on what terminology we would use.
All attempts failed.


rrg mailing list

Reply via email to