Re: consensus and anonymity

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Maybe I have misread the exchange.
But I do expect chairs to receive private comments about the state of things.
And to try to respond helpful to those comments when they can.

And I expect them to make use of that exchange to help the public conversation.
To use a current example, the chair of one working group just said (paraphrasing)
    I have received several comments privately that the description of X
    in the document doesn't match reality.  However, only person A has
    spoken up on the list.  If this is a real issue, please speak up on the
    list NOW.

Being realistic, there are people who will be reluctant to speak up on the list. particularly when some of our best and most active participants have been known to land on folks who disagree with them like a ton of bricks. The chair clearly can not let the private comments change the public consensus. But he can use it to be able to tell people that several folks agree, and manage the process. There are also other reasons for sending comments to the chair. For example, I have sent comments saying roughly ~if I raise X it will cause a lot of email exchange without resolving anything. As long as you, chair, think we have discussed it enough I will refrain from raising it.~
And many other reasons come up.

Yours,
Joel

At 07:14 PM 5/31/2007, Andy Bierman wrote:
I don't understand why such a comment needs to be private.
Once the issue comes to light in the WG, it is no longer going
to be private.

You are assuming the Chair can and should be a proxy for a
WG member who wishes to remain anonymous.  I disagree.


_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]