Re: call for ideas: tail-heavy IETF process

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

 





On 5/14/2013 3:00 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
It seems to me that if it is really a discussion, then there may be many
possible things which could resolve it, and the AD raising the question
may not know exactly what is feasible to clear it.  Otherwise it is a
demand, not a discussions.  And in my experience while ADs can be pushy
(like the rest of us), they are generally prepared to have discussion.

Thus, I find your second item below to be inappropriate.

At the same time, discussions do have to be resolvable.  If there is no
way to address it, then it is not a discuss.  But "required to clar" is
the wrong picture as far as I can tell.

Point taken - at least some indication on what is expected to be changed toward a path of resolution.

As you note, otherwise it's not a DISCUSS.

Joe


Yours,
Joel

On 5/14/2013 5:12 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
I am *not* suggesting getting rid of it.

I *am* suggesting that it needs to be used only where necessary, and
that 'necessary' ought to be clearly proved by:

     - citing the specific DISCUSS criteria involved

     - providing explicit information on what would
     be required to clear the DISCUSS




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