Stewart == Stewart Bryant [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think these are valuable inputs as well. There are people
involved; whether these people are happy, whether they will
continue to work, are important factors. Of course there are
religious arguments on the other side: I
Sandy == Sandy Wills [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sandy Brian Rosen wrote (about the format issue):
It's probably true that we can push this problem off another
year, but maybe not, and definitely not for very much longer.
Sandy I think that everyone here is aware of that, which
Sandy == Sandy Wills [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sandy Gray, Eric wrote:
Sandy, In fact, contrary to what we observe in nature, change
is not the default outcome in most human organizations. That
is because - as a careful analysis of this discussion over the
years will
I think these are valuable inputs as well. There are people involved;
whether these people are happy, whether they will continue to work,
are important factors. Of course there are religious arguments on the
other side: I want my architectural diagrams; they work well in the
ITU and I want
--On Monday, 09 January, 2006 18:17 + Stewart Bryant
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think these are valuable inputs as well. There are people
involved; whether these people are happy, whether they will
continue to work, are important factors. Of course there are
religious arguments on the
On 01/09/2006 14:02 PM, John C Klensin allegedly wrote:
While I agree that diagrams are not simply a religious issue, I
think that there are many cases in which the use of diagrams,
especially complex ones, leaves people with the impression that
they have understood something when, in fact,
I disagree that the use of diagrams is a religious issue. Diagrams
are a very simple way to put specification and context together
in a compact notation such that it is easy to move from key
point to key point in a non-linear way. They provide visual
hyperlinking.
Stewart,
While I
On Jan 6, 2006, at 09:02, Sandy Wills wrote:
This is not a change; this seems to be the way the IETF works.
Many group gatherings work the same way; to me its an intuitive way
of getting any/all objections brought up, or establishing that
there aren't any, after a period of free
Ken Raeburn wrote:
This is not a change; this seems to be the way the IETF works.
Many group gatherings work the same way; to me its an intuitive way
of getting any/all objections brought up, or establishing that there
aren't any, after a period of free discussion.
If it's not a
(changing the subject since the subject is changed...)
--On fredag, januar 06, 2006 23:11:10 -0500 Sandy Wills [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Unfortunately, there seems to be a religious dogma among the
long-time IETF participants that they never take votes. All they
do is judge rough or
On 1/6/06 11:11 PM, Sandy Wills [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unfortunately, there seems to be a religious dogma among the
long-time IETF participants that they never take votes. All they
do is judge rough or smooth concensus, and that reduces our options
to simple binary choices. Thus, my
On Jan 5, 2006, at 18:35, Sandy Wills wrote:
People who agree will mumble yeah under their breath and
otherwise ignore the post. People who disagree will reply on the
list. After two weeks, someone will compare the size of the
subscriber list to the number of negative replies, and we'll
Ken Raeburn wrote:
Personally, I object to the suggestion that my vote should be counted
one way or another if I am silent. At most, it should be counted as
no strong opinion. Or should I now start responding to all the Last
Calls with I don't care about this, so please don't count me as
So... here's the problem.
Personally, I object to the suggestion that my vote should be counted
one way or another if I am silent. At most, it should be counted as no
strong opinion. Or should I now start responding to all the Last Calls
with I don't care about this, so please don't
--On fredag, januar 06, 2006 09:02:21 -0500 Sandy Wills [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
This is not a change; this seems to be the way the IETF works. Many
group gatherings work the same way; to me its an intuitive way of getting
any/all objections brought up, or establishing that there
Hello;
On Jan 6, 2006, at 9:28 AM, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On fredag, januar 06, 2006 09:02:21 -0500 Sandy Wills
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is not a change; this seems to be the way the IETF
works. Many
group gatherings work the same way; to me its an intuitive way of
Spencer == Spencer Dawkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Spencer So... here's the problem.
Personally, I object to the suggestion that my vote should be
counted one way or another if I am silent. At most, it should
be counted as no strong opinion. Or should I now start
--
-- I think we have reached substantial agreement on the following
-- statement: ASCII text was good enough for my Grandfather, and it's
-- going to be good enough for my grandchildren. Please reply to this
-- CfC if you object.
--
I object.
On Fri, 6 Jan 2006, Gray, Eric wrote:
-- I think we have reached substantial agreement on the following
-- statement: ASCII text was good enough for my Grandfather, and it's
-- going to be good enough for my grandchildren. Please reply to this
-- CfC if you object.
IMO an objection
Spencer,
--
-- It shouldn't be a vote (we don't vote - I know you know this, because
you
-- put vote in quotes), but if we had some way to let people say you
know,
-- I just don't care, that would help, too.
--
I agree, and it could also be very useful should we ever start
to realize that it
At 9:02 AM -0500 1/6/06, Sandy Wills wrote:
When you got married, did you want every person in the audience to stand up
and say I'm okay with this marriage!? No, you wanted the entire room
silent, so that you could hear any objection.
Hi,
This is a digression. Hit delete now unless
Discussion Mailing List
-- Subject: RE: objection to proposed change to consensus
--
-- On Fri, 6 Jan 2006, Gray, Eric wrote:
--
-- -- I think we have reached substantial agreement on
-- the following
-- -- statement: ASCII text was good enough for my
-- Grandfather, and it's
-- -- going
*
* --
* -- I think we have reached substantial agreement on the following
* -- statement: ASCII text was good enough for my Grandfather, and it's
* -- going to be good enough for my grandchildren. Please reply to this
* -- CfC if you object.
* --
*
Are we all in
Randy.Dunlap wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jan 2006, Gray, Eric wrote:
-- "I think we have reached substantial agreement on the following
-- statement: ASCII text was good enough for my Grandfather, and it's
-- going to be good enough for my grandchildren. Please reply to this
-- CfC if
List
-- Subject: RE: objection to proposed change to consensus
--
-- On Fri, 6 Jan 2006, Gray, Eric wrote:
--
-- -- I think we have reached substantial agreement on
-- the following
-- -- statement: ASCII text was good enough for my
-- Grandfather, and it's
-- -- going to be good
to go. Maybe not.
--
Eric
-- -Original Message-
-- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- On Behalf Of Sam Hartman
-- Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 10:51 AM
-- To: Spencer Dawkins
-- Cc: IETF General Discussion Mailing List
-- Subject: Re: objection to proposed change
This
On the other hand, it does appear that the availability of ASCII
support as a common denominator is decreasing over time. As has been
observed, some software vendors seem to go out of their way to make
simple ASCII hard to use. So there is increasing pressure to find
a (truly) better
thing, most
of the time.
--
Eric
-- -Original Message-
-- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- On Behalf Of Bob Braden
-- Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 1:57 PM
-- To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Cc: ietf@ietf.org
-- Subject: RE: objection to proposed change to consensus
Gray, Eric wrote:
It is useful sometimes to differentiate those who have
no stake in a particular issue from those who are not paying
attention.
(rest of post snipped)
Here I must become two-faced.
Personally, I agree with you. Often, there are many shades
of grey between the
Brian Rosen wrote (about the format issue):
It's probably true that we can push this problem off another year, but maybe
not, and definitely not for very much longer.
I think that everyone here is aware of that, which is why we keep coming
back to it, and will continue to until the agents of
For an organisation that, apparently, ought to be stymied and
ineffectual because of its reliance on ASCII, the IETF appears to
have had a remarkably productive run these past 20 years.
Dare I suggest a certain organisational maturity is evidenced by the
IETF's unwillingness to swing with every
Yaakov Stein wrote:
However, the text objected to in this case argues that
this process should be extended by a process of counting the
people who don't publicly participate in the discussion
(snip)
We proposed gauging interest by a show of hands at a plenary
meeting, rather than by the
Title: RE: objection to proposed change to "consensus"
Yaakov,
Here's the text that says "all
that"...
"It is much more likely to hear from the
veryvocal people who are
opposed to the change. That is,
assuming 1000s of participants
on the IETF discussion li
Gray, Eric wrote:
It is much more likely to hear from the very vocal people who are
opposed to the change. That is, assuming 1000s of participants
on the IETF discussion list, perhaps 20 expressed 'nays', even
strong nays, could be considered a clear consensus in favor of
change.
While
Thus spake Sandy Wills [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gray, Eric wrote:
It is much more likely to hear from the very vocal people who are
opposed to the change. That is, assuming 1000s of participants on the
IETF discussion list, perhaps 20 expressed 'nays', even strong nays,
could be considered a clear
-- To: Gray, Eric
-- Cc: 'Yaakov Stein'; ietf@ietf.org
-- Subject: Re: objection to proposed change to consensus
--
-- Gray, Eric wrote:
--
-- It is much more likely to hear from the very vocal
-- people who are
-- opposed to the change. That is, assuming 1000s of participants
-- on the IETF
Gray, Eric wrote:
Sandy,
In fact, contrary to what we observe in nature, change
is not the default outcome in most human organizations.
That is because - as a careful analysis of this discussion
over the years will disclose - there are as many ways to go
with a change as there are
: Thursday, January 05, 2006 3:34 PM
-- To: Gray, Eric
-- Cc: ietf@ietf.org
-- Subject: Re: objection to proposed change to consensus
--
-- Gray, Eric wrote:
--
-- Sandy,
--
--In fact, contrary to what we observe in nature, change
-- is not the default outcome in most human organizations
Sandy Wills wrote:
[..]
A simple mental experiment: If we have, say, 2000 readers, and we post
the question
Will the sun rise tomorrow? We think yes.
Then you invite ridicule upon anyone who says no.
However, consider this case: you post Should we move to using MS Word?
and 5
grenville armitage wrote:
However, consider this case: you post Should we move to using MS Word?
and 5 minutes later some hardy soul posts No. Over the next few
minutes to
hours some hundreds or thousands of list members' mail servers will
receieve these two emails. Many of the human
Sandy Wills wrote:
grenville armitage wrote:
However, consider this case: you post Should we move to using MS Word?
and 5 minutes later some hardy soul posts No. Over the next few
minutes to
hours some hundreds or thousands of list members' mail servers will
receieve these two emails. Many
(comments inline, but the summary is that _I_ read your words and
apparently get a different meaning from when _you_ read your words)
grenville armitage wrote:
Sandy Wills wrote:
grenville armitage wrote:
However, consider this case: you post Should we move to using MS Word?
A simple
Sandy Wills wrote:
someone (I think Brian Carpenter is the poor guy stuck with
this job) will post a simple statement and ask if the
statement has concensus. No multiple choice, no discussion,
just statement. I hope it happens soon...
The IETF should publish RFCs in the traditional text
Sandy Wills wrote:
[..]
A CfC usually follows a Discussion and has ONE (count 'em)
statement, by ONE (count 'em) person, expressing a clear value or
decision, asking for agreement or disagreement.
...asking for agreement or disagreement.
If it quacks like a question...
cheers,
Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
On Monday, January 02, 2006 09:56:15 PM -0800 Randy Presuhn
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi -
In http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ash-alt-formats-00.txt
section 3 says:
| Furthermore, the authors propose that the IESG carefully consider
| declaring
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Speaking for myself, I agree. The whole point of rough consensus is to
leave scope for some nay-sayers, but it's for the WG Chairs (if relevant)
and the IESG to judge whether the number of objections is significant.
That is what were asking for in this case.
Stewart
04, 2006 11:02 AM
-- To: Jeffrey Hutzelman
-- Cc: ietf@ietf.org
-- Subject: Re: objection to proposed change to consensus
--
-- Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
--
--
-- On Monday, January 02, 2006 09:56:15 PM -0800 Randy Presuhn
-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--
-- Hi -
--
-- In
-- http
Brian,
Yours is sort of a general reply to a question which has
very specific relevance in this case.
Yes, the current process allows for getting around a few
nay-sayers.
However, the text objected to in this case argues that
this process should be extended by a process of counting the
people
Title: RE: objection to proposed change to consensus
However, the text objected to in this
case argues thatthis process should be extended by a process of counting
thepeople who don't publicly participate in the discussion, eitherway,
as having tacitly given their approval to whatever
Hi -
In http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ash-alt-formats-00.txt
section 3 says:
| Furthermore, the authors propose that the IESG carefully consider
| declaring consensus in support of the change even if a large number
| of 'nays' are posted to the IESG discussion list.
I object
On Monday, January 02, 2006 09:56:15 PM -0800 Randy Presuhn
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi -
In http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ash-alt-formats-00.txt
section 3 says:
| Furthermore, the authors propose that the IESG carefully consider
| declaring consensus in support of the
51 matches
Mail list logo
