Carsten,
You may be confusing my concern. It is not an issue of voting or having no voice in reaching consensus. It is an issue that if people who intended or needed to participate FTF are prevented to do so by late schedule changes, they are disfranchised from the discussion process (if they believe that the FTF was the best venue to discuss issues, input, whatever matter to them. That is the problem and anybody who allows that to happen indeed fails to cater to this fundamental issue.
Thanks
Stephane
_____
Stephane H. Maes, PhD,
Director of Architecture - Mobile, Oracle Corporation.
Ph: +1-203-300-7786 (mobile/SMS); Fax / UM: +1-650-607-6296.
e-mail: stephane.maes@xxxxxxxxxx
IM: shmaes (AIM, Y!) or stephane_maes@xxxxxxxxxxx (MSN Messenger)
-----Original Message-----
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@xxxxxxx>
To: Adrian Farrel <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
CC: Carsten Bormann <cabo@xxxxxxx>; Stephane Maes <stephane.maes@xxxxxxxxxx>; ietf@xxxxxxxx <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sun Nov 07 06:10:26 2004
Subject: Re: Disfranchise - use of language [Was: Re: [Inquiry #19085] Issue with Meeting Schedule change at the lastmoment]
On Nov 07 2004, at 07:36 Uhr, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> Disfrachise is a perfectly good word. I believe it means exactly what
> Stephane intended it
> to mean...
Probably.
That's why I spoke up.
> "To deprive of a franchise or chartered right; to dispossess of the
> rights of a citizen,
> or of a particular privilege, as of voting, holding office, etc."
Exactly.
It's a perfectly good indicator that there is confusion about what
working group meetings are.
RFC 2418 says:
Each working group will determine the balance of email and face-to-
face sessions that is appropriate for achieving its milestones.
Electronic mail permits the widest participation; face-to-face
meetings often permit better focus and therefore can be more
efficient for reaching a consensus among a core of the working group
participants. In determining the balance, the WG must ensure that
its process does not serve to exclude contribution by email-only
participants. Decisions reached during a face-to-face meeting about
topics or issues which have not been discussed on the mailing list,
or are significantly different from previously arrived mailing list
consensus MUST be reviewed on the mailing list.
Now if Stephane has reason to believe this mandate will not be
fulfilled, then he can talk about disenfranchising.
In summary, by using this word, Stephane is implying he believes the
lemonade WG chairs will not do their job fulfilling the RFC 2418
mandates.
Being a WG chair myself (of another WG), I find that interesting.
Gruesse, Carsten
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf