It's not unfair. I deliberately tried to say i don't want to distract from the handover process. How you would want to handle things is not necessarily the way the incoming chair wants to handle things. By delaying the discussion until afterwards I merely want to give the incoming chair a chance to have their input, as chair.
I don't think its productive to make someone's support or otherwise of an experiment to distract from getting the right chair to replace you. As for what's needed - that's simple a recommendation to the board which Iis clear an unambiguous. We are not there yet, we don't have consensus here. I believe we don't have consensus because we haven't tried things to provide data. Sent from my Windows Phone ________________________________ From: Roman Shaposhnik<mailto:ro...@shaposhnik.org> Sent: 2/23/2015 3:52 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org<mailto:general@incubator.apache.org> Subject: Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) <ross.gard...@microsoft.com> wrote: > We don't need consensus from the board. We need data to allow the board to > evaluate properly. That's fair, but what *exactly* do you need? > The IPMC is tasked with providing recommendations. Personally I'm waiting for > the disruption a chair > change brings to settle down and will then look forward to helping with some > experimentation Wow! That's kind of unfair. What disruption are you talking about? There will be a VOTE thread this week (now that I'm back to start it) and I haven't seen much disruption *at all*. Saying that pTLP is somehow blocked on this imaginary 'disruption' thing feels really weird. Thanks, Roman. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
