Being reminded of this document by this thread, a quick possible nit:
"It extended the attendance requirement to define meeting
attendance as including logging in to at least one session of a
fully-online IETF meeting."
Am i showing not being a native english speaker by thinking
"oh gee, now i have even more requirements, i must not only attend in person,
i also have to attend remotely once in a while" ?
Aka: "extend ... requirement" sounds as an AND not as OR.
Cheers
Toerless
On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 11:19:46AM +0200, Lars Eggert wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Jan 26, 2023, at 10:14, Vincent Roca <vincent.roca@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > However, a clarification is missing in this document even if it may seem obvious to you:
> >
> > « This document reflects the consensus obtained after active discussions in the ELEGY group.
> > Several ideas have been dismissed during discussions, and this document does not try to record them. »
> >
> > Then I can more easily « accept » the outcome, because I trust you all and understand that reaching consensus is a complex process that requires compromise.
>
> as the responsible AD here, I'd like to push back a bit on that addition, on the grounds that by default, all IETF standards-track documents only capture WG consensus without always explicitly saying so. (When they - rarely - describe paths not taken, *that* is then explicitly called out.)
>
> Thanks,
> Lars
>
> --
> last-call mailing list
> last-call@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
--
---
tte@xxxxxxxxx
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
