>>>>> "Glen" == Glen Zorn <g...@net-zen.net> writes:
Glen> On 4/16/2011 2:21 AM, Stephen Hanna wrote: >> I agree with Katrin's count for the email poll. When combined >> with the count from the meeting in Prague (since Alan asked for >> only folks who didn't attend the EMU WG meeting in Prague), Glen> Based upon a policy that was AFAICT created out of thin air by Glen> Bernard, who has AFAICT zero official status in emu (but, Glen> OTOH, _has_ evinced the ability to count). Glen, your message lacks a certain clarity, which is to say I can't really understand what it means. However, I've thrown darts randomly around the room, and managed to find most of them where they landed, and based on that, I think you might be saying the following: Bernard came up with the idea that the chairs should have a consensus call in the meeting and ask for input from those not participating in the meeting on the list. You think this comes from thin air. If that was not roughly what you were trying to say, stop here and see if you can recommend a translator I can use:-) If that was what you were trying to say, take a look at RFc 2418, the BCP on working group procedures. That document requires that the sense of the room and the list together be taken into account: decisions are made on the list but the people in the room count there. Also, RFC 2418's language encourages something very like what the chairs did. In addition, this particular part of IETF process has made its way all the way to an IAB appeal as part of evaluating the decision te deprecate site-local addresses in IPv6. The appeal response specifically cited the v6 chairs's decision to handle the list traffic in a manner very similar to what the EMU chairs did here--and yes, this was cited as a *good thing* in following our process. So, while the counting may be lacking, the process grounding at least to the extent I'm discussing it here seems quite firm. _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu