Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2011-09-11 08:11, Sam Hartman wrote:
<snip>
I do not think the following types of comments should be considered as
objections when judging this sort of consensus:
1) You are not solving the most important problem
2) This will not do any good
Exactly. A very large part of the discussion has not been relevant
to the Last Call of this particular version of this particular
draft. In deciding the question, the IESG only needs to look
at comments that are relevant.
There are many other issues in 2026 that probably need attention,
but as we've learnt over the last N years, trying to tackle them
simultaneously is manifestly impossible.
Please trust there is no disrespect in stating this but this *sounds*
like there is a realization that the reasons for problematic stagnant
proposals are now going to be view as non-valid reasons.
I don't have a particular concern if that is used for progressing and
"labeling" proposals with a new status, but I am weary if that idea is
used to circumvent the initial concerns.
--
HLS
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf