Sam, There is no need to prolong this particular side of the discussion now that Cullen clarified his position. But, I have to say that this thread is but one example that we often don't clearly understand each other's positions. You interpret Cullen's DISCUSS as : "I think it's reasonable for Cullen to say "I agree with that other discuss," and that's how I interpret his current position. " Cullen clarifies it as: "I believe the editor pretty much understands the issue and if I get requests to please rewrite to be a reasonable discuss, I'm glad to do that after the meeting. " Most of the IESG members' names have four letters or less :). It is not very hard to type "Agree with XXXX" even if someone is in a hurry. Next, I can't read Steffen and Dragan's minds, and so I don't know what their understanding of the issue is and whether they understand it as Cullen agreeing with the other discuss or something else. At this point, we have that additional step of saying "please rewrite your discuss to be a reasonable discuss." It looks like my interpretation was right that I have to beg for clarification to go forward here. best, Lakshminath On 3/6/2008 2:32 PM, Sam Hartman wrote: >>>>>> "Lakshminath" == Lakshminath Dondeti <ldondeti@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > Lakshminath> Sam, > Lakshminath> I fail to understand why this has to be a guessing game. I also don't > Lakshminath> understand the argument about resolving DISCUSSes sequentially (in > Lakshminath> reference to your point about Cullen holding his DISCUSS beyond > Lakshminath> resolution of Russ's). > > > I guess I was unclear. I think it's reasonable for Cullen to say "I > agree with that other discuss," and that's how I interpret his current > position. I think it's kind of odd for him to stick that in the > discuss box rather than the comment box, but I don't think it is > particularly harmful provided that his discuss never blocks the > document. I.E. he needs to make sure his discuss is removed before > Russ clears. > > > Put another way, it's fine for Cullen to tell other IESG members that > he agrees with a discuss. It's fine for him to agree so strongly that > he'd like to be given an opportunity to take on the discuss if for > example the person holding the discuss gives up and wants to drop the > issue. It's not fine for him to expect you to do anything based on a > discuss that vague. It's not fine for his inaction to cause your > document to get stuck based on a discuss that vague. > > _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf