Hi, I don't think your apparent unfamiliarity with the process being followed should accord your opinions with any merit - as far as I can tell, we are done. I think the lack of consensus was due to the intransigence of some members of the working group, which continues, and in the face of which I think the chairs did a terrific job.
I am happy with the form of the document and with the recommendation. I could comment that some of the proposals are ill-considered, but that would be gratuitous. Have a nice day. Thanks, John Sent from my iPhone > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > William Herrin > Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2010 12:58 PM > To: Tony Li > Cc: RRG; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [rrg] Fwd: RRG Recommendation > > 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 _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
