Joel, allow me to ask you as an observer some questions:
1. If this WG is not for the WG members, of all cuts & sizes, to work in then what is it for? 2. If the chairs of this WG are unable to steer, form and then actually measure consensus, and in due course also end up "disenfranchising" WG members, then isn't this a point that needs to be addressed (sadly a recurring theme in this particular WG)? 3. Is a regular way forward is to adopt every draft with "some interest", even if nearly entirely overlapping in scope with other draft also adopted, and is there a precedent? Thanks, Woj. On 26 April 2012 21:42, Joel M. Halpern <[email protected]> wrote: > If I may, it seems to me that several of these replies miss some important > points in the message from the chairs. > > 1) It became clear during the WG poll that the documents were not > complete. This is not a bad thing. We need to finish them. > 2) The poll did indicate that there is interest in the documents. > 3) Given that the documents are not complete, they can not be sent to the > IESG at this time. Until they are complete, a final decision on what > status they will be labelled with can not be made. > > Hence, what can be done is either to adopt the documents as WG documents, > or not. Even if the chairs were to state an intended status for the > documents upon completion, that would have to be verified when the final > content was available. > > The most important thing actually is the call for reviewers. If you want > to see any of the documents adopted by the working group, and worked on, we > need folks to step forward as reviewers. Folks who are not the authors. > > Yours, > Joel M. Halpern > An observer without a preference on outcomes. > > PS: I think there is also some confusion about IETF processes. However, I > will not belabor the list with a rant on that. I will happily answer > off-list questions if it i helpful to individuals. > > > On 4/26/2012 2:14 PM, Antonio M. Moreiras wrote: > >> 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<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires> >> >> ______________________________**_________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/softwires<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires> >
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
