The time for debating this further within the context of the IRTF is, in my opinion, long over and it's time to move on. Can you explain what you mean by moving on? Heiner -----Ursprüngliche Mitteilung----- Von: George, Wes E IV [NTK] <[email protected]> An: William Herrin <[email protected]>; John E Drake <[email protected]> Cc: RRG <[email protected]> Verschickt: Mo., 4. Okt. 2010, 16:17 Thema: Re: [rrg] Fwd: RRG Recommendation -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of William Herrin Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2010 7:27 PM To: John E Drake Cc: RRG Subject: Re: [rrg] Fwd: RRG Recommendation On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 7:23 PM, John E Drake <[email protected]> wrote: >> 1. Tony's initial inclusion of a the recommendation back in March was >> very contentious, with substantial dissent exhibited on the list. > > JD: As usual, there was a volume of whining from a few people. >Then prove it. Hold a consensus check on the recommendation's >inclusion and find out for certain. That's what consensus checks are >for. To what end? How many people need to respond in the affirmative for you (since this *is* mainly about you) to be convinced that consensus is reached, and that the chairs are following the rules instead of being autocratic? Another surveymonkey poll whose respondents are self-selected? Email poll (also self-selected respondents) that hopefully the correct group of folks respond to? A discussion during Beijing? How many respondents constitute a majority? Do we disallow from voting anyone who might benefit from their proposal being recommended, since you implied in a previous message that there are ethics concerns? Even if we get a bunch of new folks who weigh in, how do we determine that they are actually bringing new concerns vs simply retreading old discussion that they weren't present for the first X times it happened? What if you don't like the results? Do you again cry foul as to the procedure until you get an answer you like? And what value are you hoping to derive from proving that you're right and/or removing the recommendation? That this gets debated for another year within RRG, so that we get to hear the same arguments from the same group of folks that has fundamental disagreements over items in the recommendation? Ever heard that well-quoted phrase about the definition of insanity? The time for debating this further within the context of the IRTF is, in my opinion, long over and it's time to move on. Count me as one that has not been as heavily involved in RRG as I would have liked, but strongly supports publishing the document as-is, independent of any procedural discussion as to whether your request is even appropriate. If the IETF community doesn't find any value in the recommendation because it doesn't represent consensus, they will do what they believe is appropriate after reading the document and making their own judgment as to the merits of the proposals, whether the recommendation is present or not. At this point, moving the items that have value to solve the problems this group was chartered to address into IETF WGs is what needs to happen, and your participation in those groups is the proper means to ensure that your opinion on their implementation is represented. Wes George, token operator. This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message. _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
_______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
