On Mon, Apr 6, 2020, at 04:00, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
I usually also commented/suggested that when a manager calls for last 5 meetings and participants are absent in two meeting then by RFC8713 they are eligible, so even if I add meeting 102, I should make sure that a participant must have only two absent of (103,104,105,106), I just will add 102 to give him chance to be eligible even if he/she did not attend 107 because of the pandemic. So if participant is absent in 107 we don't count his absence but if he/she attended it is MUST be counted because it was called for by managers.
Is there a particular person or group of people that you believe are disenfranchised by not including 107, or is this objection about "correctness" of some sort and following a set of rules.
"So if participant is absent in 107 we don't count his absence but if he/she attended it is MUST be counted because it was called for by managers." is clearly also not "correct" by the book of RFC8713, so we're back in competing alternative options, not following existing rules precisely.
So again - is your objection based on a particular group of people that you think are specifically disenfranchised by Barry's draft, or is it an alternative colour for this bikeshed we find ourselves having to urgently paint?
Cheers,
Bron.
--
Bron Gondwana, CEO, Fastmail Pty Ltd
brong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
