My main conclusion for the moment is that Last Call comments should indicate
first of all a definite Support or Oppose for the decision at hand if they are
to be counted for or against consensus.
I'm not going to state a position, which means that you should not count me as
either for or against the proposal.
Keith
On Sep 2, 2011, at 6:31 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
First, I'm in full agreement with Ross.
Second, for the record and as a response to Keith, my read of the discussion
on the last call was the biggest group of responses said that we should move
forward with the draft. There were two smaller groups, those with a clear
objection and those with roughly a "no-objection" or "it does not cause harm"
opinion (and a group who seemed to discuss orthogonal issues and not respond
to the question). I could of course have made mistakes in this determination,
but I thought it was rough (perhaps very rough) consensus.
Of course, it gets more interesting if you start thinking about the reasons
why people wanted to move forward. Keith's latest e-mail has interesting
theories about those. I don't think anyone thinks this is the priority #1
process fix for the IETF. For me, cleaning cruft from the IETF process RFCs
is a big reason for supporting this work. And I must admit that we seem to be
in a place where its very, very hard to make _any_ process RFC changes.
Getting one done, even if its a small change would by itself be useful, IMO.
Finally, I think two levels are enough.
Jari
On 03.09.2011 00:34, Keith Moore wrote:
(iii) Any consensus that a 2 step process is better than a 3 step process.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf