Dear all, I personally regret this decision and reject the justifications provided. If you don't want people to contribute and express their opinion, it is easy: make it a close community.
If you insist to ignore what expressed the majority of individuals who participated to the poll, may I suggest: we stop all this stateless A+P work. It does not make sense at all to continue work on two parallel efforts having 90% of similarities. Cheers, Med >-----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 > _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
