I believe Sam's discuss cover the issues I was concerned about and I have removed my discuss. On Mar 6, 2008, at 2:57 PM, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote: > 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