Re: Qualifying for NomCom

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

 



Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
    >> Right. So that's not what "consensus" means. Suggest you reread
    >> RFC 7282. It's not normative, but I think it's helpful to reread
    >> when you feel that you have failed to find consensus. It contains
    >> some good advice about getting to consensus.

    > Well let's see...

    > "Lack of disagreement is more important than agreement..." check.
    > There was disagreement with the proposals, and no better ones
    > presented available.

    > "Rough consensus is achieved when all issues are addressed, but not
    > necessarily accommodated..." check. I wasn't able to even address the
    > concerns raised, because they were valid, and again there were no
    > solid remedies proposed.

I concur with Murray: there were objections which remained open and
uncontested.

    > On the other hand, I realize now that previous thread went on longer
    > than I remembered, and there was a proposal that we (I, probably)
    > construct an RFC3933-style process experiment and let that run for a
    > while. If it works well, we can codify it by adding it to RFC7437bis.
    > So I'll do that. If anyone wants to volunteer to collaborate on it,
    > please contact me directly.

Yes, let's do that!

It would awesome if we could say definitely that the new rules
contribute to more volunteers before we actually use them.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


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