Re: Confirming vs. second-guessing

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

 



On Mar 17, 2008, at 11:38 PM, Fred Baker wrote:

>
> On Mar 17, 2008, at 10:05 PM, Lixia Zhang wrote:
>
>> Call me an idealist:), I personally believe, generally speaking, it  
>> is better to put everything on the table, rather than partial info,  
>> between nomcom and confirming body.
>>
>> Step up a level: wonder where this discussion is leading to?  
>> Exactly how to revise 3777?
>
> It sounds like you would rather get rid of the nomcom and have the  
> confirming body do the work from the start.

Actually to the opposite: I firmly believed it is the nomcom who makes  
the selection.

If you quote my full messages, I said

     First of all, I fully agree with others it should be
     the candidate's choice about what to disclose to whom.

Just that personally and for myself, I would not mind whoever I had  
concern with to know about it.

> I have heard it said that the IETF, in the most recent discussion  
> that failed up update that portion of what we now call 3777, had a  
> 90/10 consensus and didn't come to a perfect consensus.

I did not participate in 3777 formation.  If above is the case, my own  
vote would be that 90/10 is a lot more than a "rough consensus", and  
we should just write down precisely what that is.

> I think we have to say what the role and reach of the confirming  
> body is, which may require us to think hard about what it means to  
> have "rough consensus".


_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

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