[Top] [All Lists]

Re: IONs & discuss criteria

2008-03-06 18:09:49
Thanks Cullen.


On 3/6/2008 5:05 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:

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 
   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 current
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 that
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>