A point of order is a process check. The process is not supposed to move
forward until the technical issues are solved. If the technical issues
aren't solved, then the process shouldn't move forward until they are.
So, a technical opinion that the technical problems aren't solved can
certainly form the basis for a process question.
I submit that your next step as working group chair is to obtain a
technical consensus on the question raised by Mr. Haynes. If he is right,
then the process shouldn't move forward yet.
However, I'd say he has raised a good point. Though, I'd say my 9 or 10
points are also significant show-stopper problems.
--Dean
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004, Andrew Newton wrote:
On Aug 18, 2004, at 6:32 AM, Chris Haynes wrote:
May I humbly raise a point of order to the Chair concerning the
projected output
of the MARID WG?
I'm not sure there is much humility in raising a point of order
premised on your opinion of the technical proposal and not on the
process for how this group is conducting its work.
Or perhaps you and I have a different idea for the meaning of point of
order.
You are certainly free to express your technical opinion regarding
Sender ID, but let's not start using process issues to win technical
arguments.
BTW, your technical objections to Sender ID are noted.
-andy