Sebastien Roy writes: > On Thu, 2008-11-13 at 09:51 -0500, James Carlson wrote: > > I think we should have ARC advice added to the opinion: management > > needs to be advised that while this is an improvement in accuracy of > > the data, it's also a regression, and that we need to have updates to > > the SNMP implementation to support IPMP (perhaps via a private MIB). > > Do you think that we should discuss the changes in a meeting and hold an > in-person vote, or would an email vote as originally proposed be > adequate?
I think email or a quick vote during ARC business would be fine; I don't think we have enough here to schedule a review slot. > At this point, I'm not exactly sure who is in a position to > vote on this case as the PSARC membership landscape has changed since > the case was originally reviewed... The usual procedure is that the case owner or intern (Bill's still a member, though on sabbatical) calls for the vote and specifies what's being voted on and how votes are recorded. In this case, Bill could say something like: "we're voting on the commitment materials plus advice to management on the SNMP issue; please record your vote via an email message by 11/19/2008, or in person at the 11/19/2008 meeting, or speak now if you're not ready to vote yet and are not planning to vote NP." It's the members themselves who determine how and if they can vote on a case and, yes, it does sometimes happen that the membership changes between inception and commitment. It shouldn't necessarily be a problem. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james.d.carlson at sun.com> Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
