On Jun 13, 2014, at 1:40 PM, Ted Lemon <mel...@fugue.com> wrote: > On Jun 13, 2014, at 2:26 AM, Lorenzo Colitti <lore...@google.com> wrote: >> I vote for removing the text and returning the draft to the IESG as WG >> consensus, and if the IESG is not happy with that, then ask them to explain >> clearly what it is that they are worried about. > > People have already made suggestions for how to fix the text, which I would > like implemented. "The IESG" isn't asking for a change. Adrian has been > trying to negotiate a change for several months, and that resulted in some > text that was reluctantly agreed to, but that the chairs felt didn't reflect > the working group consensus, which appears to have been a correct evaluation. > The proposed text sucks, and is not what the IESG asked for. It is just > text that was agreed to because the AD who raised the DISCUSS was tired of > arguing. So blaming the IESG for the bad text and demanding that we do > something to fix it isn't going to work. We don't know what the working > group wants the text to mean. That's the problem.
If it is truly Adrian alone with an individual opinion not shared by the IESG at all, frankly he should be contributing within the WG as an individual. Over and above that though, Adrian has formally Abstained. As in, formally declined not to ballot either for or against this document. He has willingly taken himself out of the game, removing the AD superpowers granted to him in the process. It sounds like he did so with some promise from you that you would try to insert 3 sentences from him. Not 3 sentences from the IESG, but from him, the same guy who formally said he is done being a part of the discussion. It would be different if Adrian had said "With these 3 sentences, I will remove my DISCUSS and ballot No Objection or Yes. If the WG doesn't like those sentences then I will continue to DISCUSS it with you or the WG until we reach consensus" That's the whole spirit of a discuss. An Abstain is different, a bit of a double-edged sword. On one hand, the AD is sending a strong message that he or she doesn't think the document is worthy (and if a document collects enough of these, it doesn't move, I've sat through one of those cases before when I was in your shoes). On the other hand, the Abstaining AD has removed himself or herself from the debate. Rock meet hard place for you, so you have to make a call. Do what your WG is telling you, or respect the wish of an AD that has thrown in the towel with an Abstain position anyway. tl;dr: Ted, you've fulfilled your commitment. Respect Adrian's Abstain position and the consensus of the WG at the same time by removing the text, and forwarding the document to the RFC Editor. You could even do it without a new rev, just an RFC Editors note. As I type, the Ballot is clear, all you have to do is push the button. - Mark > I asked the working group to think about this a little harder because I need > your help. If your answer to this request for help is "no," then you are > basically asking _me_ to take on this burden, and I can't. > So please reconsider. As I said, we've already had some good suggestions. > There is no reason why this has to be hard. > > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > homenet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
