On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 11:23 AM, Warren Kumari <war...@kumari.net> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 3:28 PM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF > <spencerdawkins.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, Benoit, > > > > On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 2:15 PM, Benoit Claise <bcla...@cisco.com> > wrote: > >> > >> The way I see it, we're going to fix comments forever. > > > > > > Right. But my concern was that the text that we're reading for an up/down > > vote can change after we read it, so I should be tracking the proposed > text > > changes. > > [ Updating in the middle of the thread as this seems the logical entry > point ] > > ... so, we are not updating the current version (we wanted 7 days for > people to read it), and so will be (I believe) balloting on that -- > but, just like any other document we ballot on, the RAD will pay > attention to comments received and "Do the right thing". > > I believe that EKRs comments are helpful, and Kathleen hopes to > address / incorporate them before the call. I will be putting both the > current (being balloted on) and updated version in GitHub (for a > friendly web enabled diff) so that people can see what the final > version will actually look like. > So, I guess we are formally balloting (unless the DISCUSS is cleared) > on the text as written (-22), but with an understanding that the AD > will make it look like the version in GitHub before taking off the > Approved, Revised ID needed / AD follow-up flag. > > Confused yet? :-P > Hi Warren, Thanks for this note. It's too bad that we aren't able to see the proposed revisions at this point, but I appreciate your commitment to working through the remaining issues, and I think we should be able to reach a satisfactory resolution. In the interest of not forcing everyone to read the document by tomorrow, I'm going to change my ballot to Abstain. Best, -Ekr > > > > > > That doesn't seem up/down. It seems like every other draft I've balloted > on > > as an AD :-) > > > > Indeed. > W > > > Spencer > > > >> > >> And we need to resolve this one before the current ADs step down. > >> > >> Regards, Benoit > >> > >> This may not be my week, when it comes to comprehension. At least, I'm 0 > >> for 2 so far today. > >> > >> Are we still tuning text in this draft? > >> > >> https://www.ietf.org/standards/process/iesg-ballots/ says that the > >> alternate balloting procedure is an up/down vote - we either agree to > >> publish, or agree to send a document off for rework. > >> > >> If we're still resolving comments, one can imagine that we'd get to a > >> one-Discuss situation, or even no Discusses, and wouldn't be doing an > >> Alternate Ballot on Thursday. > >> > >> I don't object to resolving comments (actually, I find that lovely), > but I > >> don't know what we're doing. > >> > >> I've never seen the alternate balloting procedure executed (either as > IESG > >> scribe or as an IESG member), so maybe I don't get it, and other people > have > >> different expectations. > >> > >> Spencer > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> OPSAWG mailing list > >> OPSAWG@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg > >> > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > OPSAWG mailing list > > OPSAWG@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg > > > > > > -- > I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad > idea in the first place. > This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing > regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair > of pants. > ---maf >
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
