At Tue, 22 Apr 2008 23:10:53 +0200, Bert Wijnen - IETF wrote: > > W.r.t. > > All this is great stuff, but it all happened after the BOF, so > > you can't reasonably claim that it represents BOF consensus. > > And since BOFs are our primary mechanism for open, cross area > > assessment for WG formation, I don't think it's accurate to suggest > > that this is anywhere as near as open as actually having the > > discussion in the BOF and gettting consensus, nor is it a substitute > > for that. > > > > I do not think that forming a WG MANDATES a BOF. > Several WGs have been formed (in the past) without a BOF. > > So pls do not depict a story as if a BOF is the only way how we > reach consensus in IETF on teh question of forming a WG or not. Yes, but when you have a BOF which doesn't come to consensus on a technical direction, which is then shortly followed by a proposed charter which *does* specify a technical direction, I think that's a somewhat different story. -Ekr _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf