On 25-04-2012 22:41, Alain Durand wrote: > 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.
I regret so much this decision. I, personaly, and also my team, have been following the work of this IETF WG, and others regarding IPv6, for quite a long time. We are involved with IPv6 dissemination. We do not participate actively here, because we choose to prioritize other tasks. Sadly, the time and other resources are always limited, and we can't contribute in all ways we would like to. I did choose to sign the list with this email address recently solely in order to vote in this matter, because it is important and urgent, and I wanted to express my support to MAP (but, more important than that, to express my support on advancing only one of the options, MAP or 4rd-U), and help the group to make the decision in a timely way. If I had the slightest idea that this kind of behavior could prejudice the vote and decision in any way, as it seems to have done, I wouldn't have voted. I honestly thought the IETF was more open, and that newcomers were more welcome. I am really, really sorry because I didn't know that it was not expected that newcomers in a WG expressed their opnions, and that it would be considered "noise", "inflating" the numbers. Maybe it could be a bit more clear, when the vote was called, that newcomers were not expected to express their opinions, and that only those already discussing the question in the list for some time should participate. I am not criticizing the process in anyway, just stating that I could not understand it correctly before now. Said that, I must add that I've not voted lightly. It was a choose based on a careful reading and analysis of the proposals, of a technical point of view, and on a good understanding of the current state of the IPv6 implementation, and current planning, in the local Internet market of the country I live on, including local ISPs and local equipment manufacturers. I apologize for trying to contribute, helping the group to make what I considered a very needed choose, based on my limited experience, and ending up being just a noise generator, inflating the numbers. I am feeling really bad about that. Anyway, seeing the 75 x 0 votes to the 1st question being ignored, and a decision that lead us to more indefinition regarding a usable stateless transition technique based on A+P is very, very, disappointing. It seems to me that with this new way forward we will loose the timing. We will end up with an optimal and very elegant solution that will not be used by anyone. Sadly, it seems to be better to forget the whole idea, and put our efforts elsewhere. Antonio M. Moreiras. _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
