> However, the text objected to in this
case argues that
this process should be extended by a process of counting the
people who don't publicly participate in the discussion, either
way, as having tacitly given their approval to whatever side of
the argument the authors, the WG chairs or the IESG choose.
Wow, did we say all that?
this process should be extended by a process of counting the
people who don't publicly participate in the discussion, either
way, as having tacitly given their approval to whatever side of
the argument the authors, the WG chairs or the IESG choose.
Wow, did we say all that?
All we are saying is that for the issue we are
discussing
there is no WG. The only list that is open to its
discussion
is the general list, where there is no
support.
However, quite a large number of people who actively
participate
in IETF WGs (people who are interested in working
on technical topics,
but not on the internal workings of the IETF) who want
the process
changed.
We proposed gauging interest by a show of hands at a
plenary
meeting, rather than by the number of yes votes on
this list.
Yes, even that is not optimal since there are people
who prefer
working in the terminal room or touring in the
evenings,
but it certainly seems to be a better way of finding
out what
MOST IETF participants want than only reading this
list.
I fail to see how this is equivalent to allowing
authors or chairs
to decide for themselves what
should be done.
Y(J)S
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf