The only person who has really engaged the conversation during the last call period was the draft editor, i.e. Russ Housley (who also happens to be a Security Area Director, but in this case he cannot play this role). So it is "one" against "one" and Sam is now the single Security Area Director allowed to make a decision. In general the activity on this mailing list is rather low. Silence on the mailing list is rather difficult to interpret. I do not agree with the interpretation Blake made of this silence: it like making the dead peole talk. I cannot understand why Russ is not wishing to try to find a compromise. In the current situation, I believe it t would be fair to have a straw poll on the mailing list and raise the two topics separately. I do not expect many responses. If you agree, I can draft the text of the two questions and propose it to "you" (i.e. Sam and the co-chairs). Denis >OK, let me back up and explain the events as I see them and try to >clarify. And I am certainly welcome to any comments or criticism about >what my role is or how I should proceed with this. > >* My job as WG chair is to make sure that the editor (Russ) has created >a draft that incorporates what we consider to be the rough consensus of >the working group. > >* You had some comments on this draft. Some of your comments were >incorporated. Some of your comments had zero support from the WG members >on the working group mailing list. Clarifications welcome as to exactly >who else supported these comments. > >* WG last call closed over a month after your unincorporated comments >were made, which allowed plenty of time for anyone to come forward to >support your position or for any interested parties to discuss them. > >* Because of this lack of interest from anyone but yourself, those >comments were considered the "rough" part of "rough consensus" and were >not incorporated. That is, you had something that wasn't working for >you, you explained your concern on the mailing list, and no one else >shared that concern. > >* As WG chair, I believe that this was the right way to proceed, Sean as >co-chair was in agreement, and the draft progressed out of the working >group. > >Denis Pinkas wrote: >> You previously said: >> >> "I strongly suggest that you try and build consensus for these two >> positions separately". >> >> I keep trying. > >I believe that Sam's recommendation was to take each issue separately >and present them clearly to others in the community, and then try to >determine what the consensus is about each issue. That is, start a >discussion, and based on the outcome of that discussion see where we >stood. This didn't happen. > >> Now you say: >> >>> It is the WG chairs' job to describe the reasoning for why your >>> comments were rejected during the WG discussion and I've asked the >>> chairs to do that. >> >> This does not sound to be a way to try to build consensus for these two >> positions separately. Am I missing something ? > >I'm willing to accept criticism here, but it's not my job to build the >consensus for you. It's my job to determine if an issue has been raised, >and to determine if the community has had enough time to review it, and >to make sure that the author has incorporated what I believe the >consensus to be. > >* You raised some issues > >* No one commented on the issues > >* You escalated the issues > >* No one commented on the issues > >* This indicates to me that these issues are only interesting to you, >and not to the WG at large, and thus does not reflect the consensus. I >mean, I'm not so bold as to say that people are in active disagreement >with your position, but I will say that no one cares enough about it to >warrant supporting it. > >So I'm willing to do whatever is required here to make sure that I'm >doing my job right, and to make sure that I'm facilitating the creation >of high quality drafts. But as far as whether or not your comments have >gotten their due consideration from the working group, I will say >emphatically that I think they have. > >Blake >-- >Blake Ramsdell | Sendmail, Inc. | http://www.sendmail.com > Regards, Denis Pinkas _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf