[Top] [All Lists]

Re: IONs & discuss criteria

2008-03-06 18:06:45

I believe Sam's discuss cover the issues I was concerned about and I  
have removed my discuss.

On Mar 6, 2008, at 2:57 PM, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:


There is no need to prolong this particular side of the discussion  
now that Cullen clarified his position.  But, I have to say that  
this thread is but one example that we often don't clearly  
understand each other's positions.

You interpret Cullen's DISCUSS as :  "I think it's reasonable for  
Cullen to say "I
agree with that other discuss," and that's how I interpret his  
current position. "

Cullen clarifies it as: "I believe the editor pretty much  
understands the issue and if I get requests to please rewrite to be  
a reasonable discuss, I'm glad to do that after the meeting. "

Most of the IESG members' names have four letters or less :).  It is  
not very hard to type "Agree with XXXX" even if someone is in a hurry.

Next, I can't read Steffen and Dragan's minds, and so I don't know  
what their understanding of the issue is and whether they understand  
it as Cullen agreeing with the other discuss or something else.

At this point, we have that additional step of saying "please  
rewrite your discuss to be a reasonable discuss."  It looks like my  
interpretation was right that I have to beg for clarification to go  
forward here.


On 3/6/2008 2:32 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
"Lakshminath" == Lakshminath Dondeti <ldondeti(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com> 
   Lakshminath> Sam,
   Lakshminath> I fail to understand why this has to be a guessing  
game.  I also don't
   Lakshminath> understand the argument about resolving DISCUSSes  
sequentially (in
   Lakshminath> reference to your point about Cullen holding his  
DISCUSS beyond
   Lakshminath> resolution of Russ's).
I guess I was unclear.  I think it's reasonable for Cullen to say "I
agree with that other discuss," and that's how I interpret his  
position.  I think it's kind of odd for him to stick that in the
discuss box rather than the comment box, but I don't think it is
particularly harmful provided that his discuss never blocks the
document.  I.E. he needs to make sure his discuss is removed before
Russ clears.
Put another way, it's fine for Cullen to tell other IESG members that
he agrees with a discuss.  It's fine for him to agree so strongly  
he'd like to be given an opportunity to take on the discuss if for
example the person holding the discuss gives up and wants to drop the
issue.  It's not fine for him to expect you to do anything based on a
discuss that vague.  It's not fine for his inaction to cause your
document to get stuck based on a discuss that vague.

IETF mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>