--On Tuesday, 03 October, 2006 13:00 +0200 Brian E Carpenter <brc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Quite seriously - am I to conclude from the absence of > comments on that draft that everyone agrees that it > correctly describes current practice? If so, I'll look for > an AD to sponsor it. Brian, As I suggested at the Montreal plenary, I believe that the majority of the community has reached a state of exhaustion on all but the most critical and pressing process issues (and maybe on those). If that hypothesis is correct, real consensus (positive or negative) about such proposals is likely to be impossible. The folks who still care about process issues and are not burned out will speak up and the folks who are afraid of unintended consequences despite being exhausted will speak up (but perhaps only on Last Call). The vast majority of the community will be silent, not because they are not impacted or don't care (although some will fall into both of those categoris) but, for the rest, because of general exhaustion with one process battle after another. The reactions to both Eliot's and Scott's 2026bis draft (in-depth comments and discussion from the usual process activists, plus comments from others when something they consider outrageous is said) and to your 2026 critique (mostly silence) could be attributed, not to agreement by everyone else, but to that exhaustion factor. Or, perhaps I'm completely wrong about the sense of the community. But I would suggest and ask that, before any more of these documents are pushed or Last Called, you try to determine the degree to which the community just does not want to deal with these issues for a while. regards, john _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf