Hi, Brian, First, welcome as new Internet-area AD. Also, thanks for the reference and the quote.
Note however that, in this particular instance, this quote will not be of any help because it concerns "issues which have not been discussed on the mailing list". On the contrary, RFC 2418 says: "There are two different cases where a working group may be trying to understand the level of consensus via a mailing list ... - In the case where a consensus which HAS BEEN REACHED during a face-to-face meeting is being verified on a mailing list ... - The other case is where the discussion has been held ENTIRELY over the mailing list" (upper cases added). Facts are that: - No consensus has been reached during the face-to-face meeting. - There has been extensive discussion on the mailing list. - The only action that has been announced in absence of consensus was publication of all specifications as experimental. There is therefore no justification I know to further delay publication of ALL specifications as WG drafts, on experimental track. - As I already said to the chairs, I am ready to do it as soon as authorized. - I understand that MAP-E+T drafts will also be treated the same, and that's obviously fair. As already said too said, if procedures continue to be distorted, I will have no other choice than referring to RFC 2026 section 6.5.1, and signal, on behalf of co-authors of the 4rd-U proposal, "a difficulty with Working Group process", with an "appeal to the IESG as a whole". King regards, RD Le 2012-04-05 à 20:43, Brian Haberman a écrit : > On 4/5/12 12:58 PM, Rémi Després wrote: >> >>> >>> 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). >> > > From RFC 2418: > > In determining the balance, the WG must ensure that > its process does not serve to exclude contribution by email-only > participants. Decisions reached during a face-to-face meeting about > topics or issues which have not been discussed on the mailing list, > or are significantly different from previously arrived mailing list > consensus MUST be reviewed on the mailing list. > _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
