[Top] [All Lists]

Re: IONs & discuss criteria

2008-03-06 19:45:10
At 5:48 PM -0800 3/6/08, Cullen Jennings wrote:

I put that in before the IESG call where this document was on the
Agenda - This was put in as the document editor, Ted in this case, had
asked me not to put in a discuss until we tried to figure out a way to
resolve this that did it without opening too many old wounds (this WG
has plenty of wounds). Ted sent me the text before the call (he send
it Tuesday) - I should have updated the discuss before the call this
morning however for some odd reason there have been some other things
using up my time this week. I have now updated the discuss and removed
this part as I should have done this morning.

For the record, I suggested we talk after Cullen DEFERed on the previous
telechat to see whether it was a misunderstanding on his part,
rather than a serious issue.  It was later that I suggested someone else
hold the discuss, because I thought Cullen would want to recuse,
since he is a patent author on a patent his company has filed related to
this document.

Given that I have now seen the discuss text, I can see that
he has managed to open the old ones, bring in ones from a related
working group that aren't really salient, and open significant new ones,
all without having paid much attention to all of the text and effort that
flowed in the attempt to get early discussion of this.

To quote ekr, "Outstanding!"

                                Ted Hardie
IETF mailing list

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