Dave,
An accounting assessment of community views, justifying claims of
rough consensus, is the usual approach towards resolving this kind of
disparity.
That sounds like a fine plan. We got most input during the third last
call when I asked whether the notes should be optional or mandatory. My
notes indicate maybe a dozen people on both sides of that particular
question, and that's the basis of my claim that there are people on
different sides of this argument. Since then we have had less people
participating in the discussion.
How would you like us to progress on this then? Do you want me to do a
recount :-) I could easily have been wrong. Or is this more about when
we are polling people? But I fear that all except the die-hards have
left the thread.
relatively minimal voiced support for the IESG insistence
Or are you suggesting that we should exclude some people who stated an
opinion, such as the ADs? But if we exclude IESG members and RFC Editor
board members and those who hold some position in the RFC Editor
function, its going to be a lonely discussion... :-D
Jari
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf