I won't just throw in a +1 ;)
On the serious side; following this discussion closely, I have to agree that at the least it doesn't feel correct and as if this is the right way of operating.
It might be correct from a procedure pov but it doesn't feel like it should go this way.
Thanks Nick for wording it better :)
Regards,
Melchior
On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 9:57 PM Nick Hilliard <nick@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Sander Steffann wrote on 02/03/2020 20:32:
> Steamrolling a draft through a working group completely undermines
> the whole idea of the IETF and greatly damages it trustworthiness and
> reliability. By bluntly declaring consensus despite all of the
> objections within two hours of the latest version of the draft being
> published I feel that Martin Vigoureux has lost the credibility as an
> AD. I strongly feel a resignation is in order at this point.
There's been a really serious breach of due process here. The issues
that cropped up on around draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming are
subtle and not easily resolved. What is beginning to emerge as
consensus is that there are underlying problems with 8200 that need
examination and careful resolution.
Frankly, it is rather difficult to see how the srv6 draft can progress
without this clarification.
For sure there's no basis for someone to throw a couple of extra
sentences into a draft and then for an AD to declare consensus two hours
later - and before anyone's had the chance to even read the draft.
At the very least, the consensus judgement needs to be rolled back. I
respectfully suggest that Martin needs to recuse himself from any
further involvement with this draft, and that he should consider whether
his actions are compatible with continuing to be an AD.
Nick
