On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 2:54 PM, Tony Li <[email protected]> wrote: >> 1. Should section 17 of draft 14 be cut following the second sentence >> ("the group did not reach rough consensus on a single best >> approach.")? >> >> 2. Should the word "recommendation" be removed from the document's >> title, replaced with a more neutral appellation such as "report," >> "analysis," or "results?" > > While your comments may be accurate, the RG has been >following the usual process for discussing the document. >We then held a consensus check as to whether the group >supported the publication of the document as of the end of >the RG LC. That passed.
Tony, I did not consent and many of the folks who grudgingly did first repeatedly asked you to strike the chair's recommendation from the document. You unilaterally refused then and have once again declined to poll the group on it today. I don't like the ethics of it Tony. Even now you have the authority to bring the document back to last call if there is some serious defect. If you've truly expressed the will of the researchers, what do you lose by asking one last pair of questions? What you gain is legitimacy. Over the coming months and years as our colleagues quiz each of us on why the alleged recommendation should be disregarded in favor of the idea du jour, the easiest response is that the the chairs, Li and Zhang, made up the recommendation _against_ the group's consensus. That in fact there was no consensus and the proposal with the most support, Lisp, was actively excluded on the chairs' whim. And I'm not saying that as a supporter of lisp. I dislike lisp. But let's face it: it has more supporters than all three of the chairs' recommendations combined. Prove me wrong. At long last ask the questions or deserve the reputations you earn having failed to. 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
