John C Klensin wrote:
Brian,
Let me make this short enough to encourage easy reading when you
wake up...
--On Wednesday, 26 October, 2005 15:06 +0200 Brian E Carpenter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And I really don't see the value of cross-posting when the
pesci-discuss list exists for exactly
On Tue, Oct 25, 2005 08:48:23AM -0400, John C Klensin allegedly wrote:
Brian, since PESCI is your show, could you reflect and comment
on at least some of this before we hold a BOF and plenary
presentation... a BOF that, were this an effort that was not
driven by the IETF Chair, might well not
I'm not even going to attempt to read this thread today (evening in
Beijing after a long flight and a long day).
But don't imagine that I and the PESCI team aren't aware of
the meta problem and believe that we have a shot at fixing it
this time.
I will read the thread as soon as I can but may I
Brian,
Let me make this short enough to encourage easy reading when you
wake up...
--On Wednesday, 26 October, 2005 15:06 +0200 Brian E Carpenter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And I really don't see the value of cross-posting when the
pesci-discuss list exists for exactly this discussion.
Much of
Some notes on a couple of your points.
--On 25. oktober 2005 08:48 -0400 John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
---
Addendum: Examples of why this team needs to be considered as an
extraordinary procedure, created by extraordinary procedures
and without clear community
speaking as an individual participant.
W.r.t.
Is PESCI characterizing the current process or inventing a new
one? Is it about principles for the IETF or principles for
process change?
My understanding is that the PESCI effort is to come up with
a proposal for the IETF on how to deal/handle
Harald,
I don't want to have this turn into a discussion among a handful
of current or recent IESG or IAB members, so will respond to
some of you note and then go quiet again. The bottom line, IMO,
is that if others in the community are not concerned about this
and willing to speak up, then
Here's a specific aspect I'd like to hear the community at large
thinking about, re. PESCI (please read all the way to the
bottom to get the actual question; it may not be what you
expect):
We're not doing this as a WG because we (agreed we) don't like those
nasty spiralling pointless and
Hi John,
I'm getting more and more troubled by the PESCI process, at
least the portions of it that I can observe by reading the
messages on the public list. I've had some of these concerns
since the process was initiated. I decided to remain silent,
at least in public, about them on the
The big difference is -- there is absolutely no piece of IETF
standards process that *requires* that the design team listen to any
of the points provided on the -discuss list. There is a tacit
requirement, in that one presumes the appropriate AD will be recalled if
the result is clearly and
10 matches
Mail list logo
