On 2/25/13 9:06 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:
> I suspect it is because it is very hard to know if someone replying with '+1'
> has actually read / has a useful opinion on whatever they are replying to, or
> is just going alone with the herd…
+1.
On 2/25/13 4:27 PM, Edward Lewis wrote:
I have this scenario in mind:
A -12 comes out and I read it thoroughly and have about 10 points that
need to be addressed.
So I respond to the document (not in last call) and all of the points
are adequately (in my opinion) addressed.
A -13 is issued
From an earlier message:
> >Miss Manners would almost certainly say that clogging the list
> >with +1 is bad manners.
I have this scenario in mind:
A -12 comes out and I read it thoroughly and have about 10 points that need to
be addressed.
So I respond to the document (not in last call) and
> Agree with what John, Brian, and others have said. FWIW, at times -
> particularly
> with documents having some controversy - the ADs are left wondering what the
> silent majority is thinking. So in some cases the private messages to the AD
> in
> question or to the IESG are helpful. And while
Hi, Jari.
On Feb 25, 2013, at 9:03 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
> Agree with what John, Brian, and others have said. FWIW, at times -
> particularly with documents having some controversy - the ADs are left
> wondering what the silent majority is thinking. So in some cases the private
> messages to
On 2/25/2013 11:16 AM, Mary Barnes wrote:
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
Agree with what John, Brian, and others have said. FWIW, at times - particularly with
documents having some controversy - the ADs are left wondering what the silent majority
is thinking. So in some c
On Feb 23, 2013, at 6:41 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
> First, "no objection" and silence by IESG members are roughly
> equivalent, but approval of a document with complete community
> silence (either outside the relevant WG or on an individual
> submission) makes some ADs nervous (and, IMO, should
On Feb 25, 2013, at 2:16 PM, Mary Barnes wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
>> Agree with what John, Brian, and others have said. FWIW, at times -
>> particularly with documents having some controversy - the ADs are left
>> wondering what the silent majority is thinki
Jari Arkko wrote:
> Agree with what John, Brian, and others have said. FWIW, at times
> - particularly with documents having some controversy - the ADs are
> left wondering what the silent majority is thinking.
I've previously mentioned that I believe the current IESG ballot rules
are insufficient
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
> Agree with what John, Brian, and others have said. FWIW, at times -
> particularly with documents having some controversy - the ADs are left
> wondering what the silent majority is thinking. So in some cases the private
> messages to the AD i
Agree with what John, Brian, and others have said. FWIW, at times -
particularly with documents having some controversy - the ADs are left
wondering what the silent majority is thinking. So in some cases the private
messages to the AD in question or to the IESG are helpful. And while "+1" is
us
--On Saturday, February 23, 2013 08:04 + Brian E Carpenter
wrote:
>...
> By the same token, it seems that a reasoned message saying
> why something is important and valuable would help the IESG,
> if the document is on a somewhat obscure topic. However, as
> John Leslie pointed out, that is
In addition to what said, I think that the most important think is
that the submitted draft be examined by the community, or read by the
community, this is what IESG needs to know the feeling in the
community after being read. I hope all drafts be read at least by 3 of
the community (not sure of st
Hi Warren,
I think IESG do ask for comments, and think that even +1 is a comment,
I prefer if the draft was a WG darft only participants out of the WG
can support. However, you SHOULD mention why you support that, is it
related to a technology, RFC or a WG works, SHOWing interest is
important to s
I think it's worth looking at what draft-resnick-on-consensus
says about the nature of rough consensus. It tells us why
reasoned objections are more important than "+1" messages
(or "-1" messages for that matter).
By the same token, it seems that a reasoned message saying
why something is importan
Hi John,
At 17:29 22-02-2013, John Leslie wrote:
IETF Consensus is presumed if folks are "sufficiently" notified and
post nothing pointing out unresolved issues. Thus "I support" and
"I oppose" are both meaningless (and Miss Manners would say, "Don't
do it.")
Yes.
The Last Call boilerplate
Warren Kumari wrote:
>
> Normally I figure that if the draft is the product of a WG there is
> already demonstrated support, and so I don't bother cluttering up the
> list with "+1, me too, FTW!, etc." but is this actually the right thing
> to do? What if I really think the draft is important / u
Hi there,
So, I have an etiquette question[0].
When a draft comes up for IETF LC, you get the standard:
"The IESG has received a request from the Funny Orange Orangutang WG (foo) to
consider the following document: 'Orangutans Considered Harmful"
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next f
18 matches
Mail list logo
