On Apr 6, 2012, at 11:04 AM 4/6/12, Rémi Després wrote: > > 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)
We may have to agree to disagree here. It is always the IETF practice to hold the binding consensus call on the mailing list. That consensus call is being conducted now. Any determination of WG consensus is premature until the results of the consensus call are complete. > - 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. This statement is wrong and makes an inappropriate implication about the chairs' motives. The chairs asked for a second assessment of consensus after asking those in the room to reconsider their position to see if some consensus could be reached. > 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. I will repeat myself: until the consensus call on the WG mailing list is complete, there is no determination of consensus or lack of consensus. The correct action is to wait until the mailing list consensus is assessed before making a determination about how to publish the various documents. >>> 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. I object here as well to your implication that there is an effort "to prevent market-based decision". The chairs are working hard to do their due diligence in assessing and determining WG consensus about how to proceed. You have one point of view, but that point of view does not constitute WG consensus. - Ralph > > Thanks, > RD > > > > >> >> Regards, >> Brian >> > > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
