And since I have asked for reasons in a plenary and never got any statement that was not phrased in the passive voice, I don't think it is unfair to describe the decision as having been made in private.
If the history is not confidential then I want to know what it was. Otherwise I don't see why it is inaccurate to describe the process as top down.
If the process is going to be described as consensus based and bottom up then at a minimum the people who take the decision have to be prepared to state their reasons.
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Russ Housley <housley@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I strongly disagree with this characterization. In my view, too many
things got bundled together, and the thing that was unacceptable too the
whole bundle down.
Russ
On 6/24/2010 2:52 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> Last time the reforms were blocked without the IETF at large even
> knowing who was responsible. It was a decision the IESG took in private
> as if it only affected them and they were the only people who should
> have a say. So much for bottom up organization.
--
Website: http://hallambaker.com/
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf