Thanks Cullen.
regards,
Lakshminath
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:
Sam,
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.
best,
Lakshminath
On 3/6/2008 2:32 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
"Lakshminath" == Lakshminath Dondeti
<ldondeti(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com>
writes:
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
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf