Thanks Cullen. regards, Lakshminath On 3/6/2008 5:05 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote: > > 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