While any procedure is subject to abuse, the behaviors described by
the RAI ADs, and described by Sam below, are both acceptable and
appropriate. They are sometimes even necessary. To tell the ADs
that they can not talk to some of the active participants in a
working group in order to figure out how to get the group unstuck is madness.
If the face-to-face meeting were able to make a binding decision, and
if the working group in the room was not given the chance to decide
whether to accept the agenda change, and if all sorts of other
conditions that did not occur had occurred, then maybe there would be
a problem.
Frankly, the ADs did their job. The chairs should now determine if
the conclusions reached in Prague are teh agreement of the WG on the
WG email list.
Yours,
Joel M. Halpern
At 07:08 PM 4/18/2007, Sam Hartman wrote:
It's reasonably common that I will try to work with chairs and key
participants in a working group to find ways to unstick a working
group. for example I may suggest to a chair that some issue needs
more time or ask why an issue that seems to be blocking the WG is not
on the agenda.
I think I've even solicited presentations (with the chair's
cooperation) to help educate the working group in an attempt to
unblock some issue.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf