At Wed, 12 Jan 2005 22:22:58 +0100, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
...
So - Scott, can you confirm that you think quorum rules should be in the
BCP? Rob, can you confirm that you think they should not be?
<hat editor=off just-another-bozo=on>
Sorry, I had missed that there was a direct question to me buried
in this thread.
You are correct that I don't think that quorum rules need to be in the
BCP, or should be in the BCP, but that was not quite my main point,
and since it may be relevant in figuring out which of the several
sides of this discussion I'm on, I'll attempt to explain.
If the IETF were to reach a rough consensus that such rules were
necessary and belonged in the BCP, I would not stand in the way of
well-thought-out quorum rules, explictly phrased as such.
What really bothered me was what seemed to be an attempt to invent new
quorum rules, without calling them quorum rules, and with inadaquate
attention to how they would work. This resulted in various bizzare ad
hoc formulations that included enough details to cripple any attempt
by the IAOC to set its own rules in this area, while simultaneously
falling short of setting rules that had any real chance of being
workable in the unlikely event that they were ever needed.
Seldom-executed code paths are trouble. Untested seldom-executed code
paths are worse. Hastily written code paths set in concrete and left
untested until an emergency occurs strike me as a really bad idea;
I'll admit that there are situations in which which all available
alternatives might be worse, but I don't think this is one of them.
</hat>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf