Chairs, ADs, I regret this decision. *Whatever* the results of the poll, your text below explicitly suggests a discrimination between voters.
Basically, you seem to distinguish between people who are entitled to vote because they have supposedly participated to the stateless specification effort (whatever the flavour) and people who are not entitled to vote because you clearly assume they have not participated to the said specification effort, let alone the discussions. I think this decision is a shame for the IETF precisely because of this discrimination. We all perfectly know how the IETF procedures have been working for many years. And we all perfectly know what kind of side effect the rough consensus motto can sometimes lead to. But I don't think this is a good enough reason to speculate on the degree of participation to the WG effort of the people who have expressed an opinion. I, for one, never sent a comment on either the MAP or the 4rd-U stuff on this list. Yet, I can assure you that I have extensively discussed both approaches with my colleagues internally. Does that make me ineligible to respond to this poll? I certainly don't think so. I don't think anyone of us is entitled to decide who has the right to vote and who hasn't. Your corrected math clearly reflect a strong consensus to (1) standardize one and only one approach and (2) adopt the MAP effort as a softwire WG item. Your decision contradicts the results of this poll. I therefore strongly encourage you to revisit your position and accept the results of this poll. If you stick to this decision, you will not only do any favor to the softwire WG, but also to the whole IETF. Cheers, Christian. -----Message d'origine----- De : [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] De la part de Alain Durand Envoyé : jeudi 26 avril 2012 03:41 À : [email protected] WG Objet : [Softwires] Result from the consensus call on Map vs 4rd-U and official way forward The chairs and ADs met to look at the results of the consensus call that ended Wednesday and decide the way forward. First, we would like to offer a couple observations on the raw results from the consensus call: - We had a number of people responding more than once, sometime with different email addresses. Having their name and affiliation in the response helped us removed those duplicate/triplicate/... - Number of unique response: 75 - Question 1: 75 yes, 0 No, few responded put both on experimental track - Question 2: 73 MAP 2 4rd-U This does not reflect at all the results we had in the Paris meeting (about 30 MAP and 20 4rd-U): a) It seems that some of the 4rd-U people who did express support for it in Paris when the same question was asked have not participated in this consensus call. b) the number of MAP responses seem to be inflated, we see a disproportionate number of response from some particular organizations. We also see a large number of responses coming from people who have not participated before in the working group. Also, it is apparent that a number of people have joined the mailing list for the sole purpose of expressing support for MAP. None of the above behaviors do any favors for the working group. We do need participation in the official call for consensus from all the active participants of the working group. As we mentioned before, in such calls, silence is consent. Also, the inflated participation in the consensus call from 'new' members that have never participate in the discussion before, creates noise that makes the results harder to read. Furthermore, we have observed that, even during the call, the analysis of both solutions did continue, and missing elements on both sides have been pointed out. We also observed a willingness of various participants to improve those specs to bring them to a level where we could start a working group last call. As a result, we have decided to approve both MAP and 4rd-U as working group work items. As work items, each document can be further refined until the working group reaches consensus about advancing the documents for IETF review. Because of the history of MAP and 4rd-U, we will designate independent teams of volunteer reviewers to advise the working group about the state of the document sets. Each set will be reviewed by an independent team who are not authors of the MAP and 4rd-U documents. Each review team will consist of three members and will determine when its document set is ready for working group last call. If you are interested in volunteering for one of the review teams, please respond directly to the chairs, indicating your preference for which document to review if you have one. The appointment of the review teams will be entirely up to the chairs. Aside from these appointed reviews, the chairs would naturally appreciate any and all reviews provided, regardless of whether the reviewer(s) participate on a review team. When the document sets are ready for working group last call, the working group will reconsider the question of the publication status: Proposed Standard or Experimental. We will try to consider all document sets for advancement at the same time, but we will not allow a delay in completing one document to hold up the working group indefinitely. - Alain & Yong, WG co-chairs - Ralph & Biran, ADs _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
