Dave Crocker <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> writes:
Eric,
>>> communities
very often want things to remain unchanged when they bring them
to IETF. I'm saying that it's not appropriate to nail that down
in the charter.
...
So the issue does not warrant marginalization as merely being due to
the original constituency.
I heard objections to this at the Paris IETF and we're in in the
middle of a formal consensus call now and I'm objecting to the
proposed wording at this time. I don't see a procedural problem
with that. That's why we have consensus calls.
1. I assume the "objections to this" that you cite were to this
wording of constraint. Are you saying that you believe that the Paris
BOF demonstrated a significant constituency in favor of the
alternative wording that you are proposing? (Sorry. I just re-read
your note and realized that you were not proposing alternative
wording.) Anyhow, since you cite the fact that some folks were
unhappy, way back at the time of the Paris BOF, I assume that their
unhappiness a) is specifically relevant to the charter change you are
seeking, and b) that you have some data that are more recent, to
counter the hum of support in Vancouver.
Yes. The specific issue of this constraint was raised and, as noted
below, in Vancouver, the hum wasn't for this exact charter language,
but for some appropriately tweaked version. And in case it's not
clear, my suggestion is to remove the paragraph.
2. As I understand what took place in Vancouver, the more recent BOF
had a nearly unanimous hum in favor of forming the working group,
using the existing draft charter text.
No. The hum was for a charter that was substantially like
the one posted.
3. You attributed the desire to make no changes as being "communities
very often want things to remain unchanged when they bring them to
IETF." I pointed out that the consensus on the current wording was
more broad than thay original community.
Dave, the time when we're determining consensus is now, so this
argument you keep making about burden of proof is inappropriate.
-Ekr
_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
http://dkim.org