On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 16:42:30 -0400 Barry Leiba
<barryleiba(_at_)computer(_dot_)org> wrote:
Mike says...
Dave CROCKER wrote:
Based on Pasi's comments, I had thought we were going the RFC route.
Well, he has a preference for /only/ going that route, but he can't
actually veto our issuing the Errata under the Errata mechanism. Anyone can
post anything they want under the Errata mechanism. Some pretty silly stuff
has gotten posted, over the years.
I believe that what Dave is suggesting is an end run around the IESG.
In which case, I suggest that the working group insist on s/our/my/g;
above so that it has similar status.
Mike, I take what you're saying to mean that you don't think the
working group is behind "an end run around the IESG", and that the
errata should not be saying that it is.
What path we take to publish the errata beyond the ID that it is now,
and whether the WG is behind publishing it without Pasi's (or the
IESG's) approval, are things we'll be discussing in San Francisco and
on the mailing list. I hope that when we leave SF we'll have most of
the answer to these, which answer we'll confirm on the mailing list.
I think we need the high-bandwidth discussion, with Pasi in the room
and responding, to get this point resolved in a way that doesn't leave
everyone waving scimitars at everyone else. We need to be discussing
things productively as we go into final processing of ADSP and into
4871bis and Draft Standard consideration. (I'm going to try to get a
conference call set up and use Skype and a microphone to allow remote
participants to talk. I know we've failed at that before, but I want
to try again.)
So while I'm on the cooperation and productivity bit....
To everyone: Please say what you mean calmly and clearly, so there's
less chance of misunderstanding or the taking of offense where none
was meant. And please don't mean offense, either, of course. "Digs",
snarkiness, and passive-aggressiveness won't keep us moving forward.
Then in the spirit of plain speaking:
I do think that the current draft attempts to alter IETF consensus via the
erata process in a way that is inappropriate.
While I think that Mike's objection was formulated in a way that unfortunately
strucutred around personality, I agree that the content to which he was
referring should be dropped from an eratum and addressed when the RFC is
revised.
Scott K
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html