Yaakov Stein wrote:
> 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
(snip)
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.
Perhaps we can move past the discussion of what you originally proposed or did not propose. That does not seem very productive. And it must feel frustrating to get criticism for something that you did not propose. FWIW, I believe that what you suggest above for using the plenary is the best way to determine IETF consensus for some IETF-encompassing issues. (With a follow-up on this list of course, but unless that generates hundreds of responses, its unlikely to make a difference to what the room thought. And there should be some preparation in the list prior to the meeting, like announcing that people should read these drafts and that certain questions are going to be asked.) --Jari _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf