Le 2012-04-06 à 16:35, Brian Haberman a écrit : > On 4/6/12 3:42 AM, Rémi Després wrote: >> Hi, Brian, >> >> First, welcome as new Internet-area AD. Also, thanks for the >> reference and the quote. > > Thanks. > >> >> 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. > > Would you agree that the outcome of the WG session in Paris is that there was > not a clear consensus to choose either one of the options? Yes. > I have not seen anyone dispute that there was not a clear consensus to > choose one option over the other. I haven't either. > Hence, everyone agrees there was not a consensus in the face-to-face > meeting. In that situation, does it make sense to ask a broader audience (the > entire mailing list) the same set of questions? Sorry to answer it is inappropriate: - The case isn't,in RFC2418, one of the two, "where a working group may be trying to understand the level of consensus via a mailing list" (see (*) above) - To make it worse, the chair, during the meeting itself, already tried to change the result by asking a second time, after some had already left, the same question about a preference between MAP and 4rd. The same ratio between the two answers happens to have been obtained, but who knows what would have been concluded otherwise? - Publishing all drafts on experimental track had been previously announced as the (logical) result in case no single solution for standard track would be agreed on. >> 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". > > That is your prerogative. Yes, but, please be sure that we have a clear preference for not having to use it. Trying by all means, including with a self-authorized procedure, to prevent market-based decision should be avoided. Thanks, RD > > Regards, > Brian > _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
