Hi Paul,
> Let me drill down a bit on that. Was your process going into this "get > consensus; if success, publish the results of that consensus; if fail, don't > publish anything" or "get consensus; if success, publish the results of that > consensus; if fail, let the co-chairs write up their own views". > > OK, that wasn't really fair. I will assume that the process going into this > was "get consensus and publish the results of that consensus" with no thought > of failure. You are correct, the process did not clearly articulate the details in the case of a lack of consensus. The chairs then proceeded to make lemonade. >> We've been trying to be as clear as possible about this and it took several >> passes to get to the current wording. Any suggestions on how we could >> wordsmith this? > > That is really between the RG and Aaron, I think. Determine if the process > was open, and whether you followed it. If so, simply add a paragraph about > the process in the introduction and/or Section 17. If not, maybe try again, > even if process fatigue has set in. Thanks, that sounds good, will add. Regards, Tony _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
