--On Wednesday, 28 July, 2010 17:53 +0200 Dave CROCKER
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> On 7/28/2010 5:47 PM, Tony Hansen wrote:
>> Dave, this is the primary discussion point for tomorrow's
>> meeting.
>
> Right.
>
> With the view that the IETF side of the topic is a done deal,
> I was trying to put a direct proposal on the table, in the
> thought that we might save part of our day.
>
> To the extent that there is anything like rough consensus for
> this, at the start of the meeting, we can save a couple of
> hours of our time. If there isn't clear consensus, we can of
> course proceed with discussion.
>
> I decided to post the proposal now, to give folks some time to
> mull it over.
I find Dave's suggestion --at least as I understand it-- to be
quite persuasive. If the IETF decision is a dumb deal (or a
railroad job, which may be an more cynical but equivalent way to
say the same thing), then let's see if we can decide on the
mailing list and free up the meeting slot entirely.
Let's at least suspend work until the situation is clear. As
editor of a critical-path document, I'm basically going to
suspend work on that document (or continue to do so) until and
unless either the IETF policy evolves to clearly keep a distinct
Full Standard model or there is strong WG consensus for
continuing.
john
_______________________________________________
yam mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
