On 6/12/13 3:17 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: > Hi, > > I agree with Warren and disagree with Pete on this issue. > > Of course, adding more arguments, being more verbose when expressing > support is very useful. However, I consider the brief comments like > the one made by Russ useful - at least in determining consensus. I am > actually encouraging such comments in the WGs I chair. I would like > to add an argument, irrespective of who made the comment (which also > counts IMO). Assuming a LC of some sorts (IETFLC, WGLC) gets only two > negative comments. Would it not be useful to know that it's (2 > (negative) vs. 0 (positive)) or (2 (negative) vs. 10 (positive))? > Indeed, we do not count votes in the IETF, but then we also have a > problem in interpreting silence, and for this purpose IMO what in > this thread is called 'content-free' actually has a lot of content on > this respect.
I think Pete is correct, in that the way we do last calls tends to look like voting, which in turn suggests to participants that we're voting. "Are there any objections to <whatever>?" is, I think, the real question at hand, although I can see where that could tend to attract cranks and chronic kvetches. Perhaps something along the lines of "Does anybody have reasons this document should not progress towards publication?" might do. Melinda
