Le 2012-04-05 à 17:48, Alain Durand a écrit : > > On Apr 5, 2012, at 10:22 AM, Rémi Després wrote: >> >> Absence of clear consensus was clear in Paris. >> Mailing list is AFAIK appropriate to confirm a consensus, not to quickly >> mask a lack of consensus by means of a weird voting procedure. > > Remi, > > You are correct there was a clear lack of consensus in the Paris meeting. > However, the gauge to enable us to formally declare consensus (or lack > thereof) is not the meeting, but the mailing list.
>From Scott Bradner to IETF newcomers at IETF 72: "final decisions must be VERIFIED on mailing list, to ensure those not present are included, but taking into account face-to-face discussion" (upper-case added). > Thus, we are asking the very same questions we asked during the Paris meeting > on the mailing list. This is NOT a formal vote. This is just a way for us, > chairs, to confirm the consensus (or lack thereof) we saw in Paris. I can't agree that the lack of consensus was dubious in the face-to-face meeting Paris, in particular because, before being urged to mitigate his statement, a neutral observer spontaneously wrote "I have not been involved in this work, but did observe at the meeting a show of hands for 4rd-U at least as numerous as that for MAP. For whatever reason, the WG at large does not seem prepared to commit to a single solution." Now, one question, assuming for a second that the new procedure would confirms what we had in the face-to-face meeting, yes to Q1, no consensus to Q2, what is your current plan? RD but taking into account face-to-face discussion > If the situation on the mailing remains the same as it was in Paris, we will > then decide what the next appropriate steps are. > > - Alain, wg co-chair. _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
