At 09:56 AM 4/22/2013, Sam Hartman wrote:
"RJ" == RJ Atkinson <rja(_dot_)lists(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> writes:
RJ> I oppose Eliot's proposed edits on grounds that they would
RJ> reduce the clarity of the specification and also would reduce
RJ> IETF and WG consensus about this specification.
Ran, I just checked, and you don't seem to be a 6man chair. We
generally ask chairs, not involved participants to judge WG consensus
and ADs to judge IETF consensus.
Bovine dung. Or more politely - nonsense. Participants judge WG consensus all
the time. Occasionally WG chairs will "declare" consensus to more the process
forward, but that's rarer than the normal group think.
So, I think what you're saying boils down to you disagree with Eliot
because you believe his comments would reduce clarity. You believe
others within the WG and outside the WG are likely to agree with you.
That's all fine and is valuable to contribute.
However, I don't think it promotes open and honest technical discussion
when participants try to call consensus.
Thanks for considering my input.
And I don't think it promotes open and honest technical discussion when you
attack "standing" of a participant who *has* participated in the formation of a
document to take an action, ask a question, or make a comment, rather than
addressing the substance of the comment(s) made by that participant.
It's unclear from what you wrote that you considered the substance of Ran's
comment.
What he wrote was:
It would reduce consensus within the WG and the IETF as a whole
to remove that text -- as it clarifies that other mechanisms for
generating such IDs are not affected by this specification.
Text to this effect was specifically requested by various WG
participants, precisely because it is not "self-evident" and
instead was confusing.
What *I* heard was: "Elliot, the section you want to remove was added
specifically through working group discussion to gain consensus for the
document". Assuming that I understood that was what he meant, and that it
represents the reality of the process, Ran drawing the conclusion that removing
that text would tend to "reduce consensus" seems to be a reasonable one and
targeted specifically at the edit.
Mike