-----Original Message----- From: Vince Fuller [mailto:v...@cisco.com] Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 6:22 PM To: George, Wes E [NTK] Cc: Noel Chiappa; rrg@irtf.org Subject: Re: [rrg] Proposal for recommendation language
>> [from Noel] >> No, that is not the intention of option 3. The intention of 3 is >> that there be _two_ documents: the first being an RRG 'proposals >> overview' document which is the existing overview/criticism/rebuttal >> groups for each of the proposals, and the second being an individual >> document which is the co-chairs recommendation document. > > [[WEG]] Ok, that's better than what I was thinking you were > suggesting, but I still fail to see the value in doing so > vs. leaving the recommendation within the current draft if it's to > be the only one. As Noel pointed out in a separate message, I am the person making the suggestion of splitting the current document. [[WEG]] yes, my apologies. I used an incorrect pronoun because I was responding to a clarification that Noel made to your recommendation. I have participated in all and presented at some of the RRG meetings during these deliberations, have been a member of the mailing list and followed the discussions there, and have been working on the Internet routing scalability problem since the arly 1990s. I'm should think that makes me a "member" of the RRG. As such, I am extremely uncomfortable with the a document being published in the name of that group that makes a set of recommendations with which I do not agree and for which we all acknowledge there exists no semblence of even rough consensus. [[WEG]] I don't think anyone is calling into question your membership, nor your contribution. Ultimately I think you should write a rebuttal to the recommendation if you feel that strongly. I agree that we should definitely highlight the things that there is consensus on, but I really don't think that how the document is formatted/separated changes the situation. > IMO the only reason to separate it would be to treat the chairs as no > one special and open the door for what would end up being multiple > individual contributions for recommendations. Even if we have some > self-imposed criterion like "you must have at least X other people who > support your proposal in order to write a draft-irtf-rrg-* recommendation > draft" so that there isn't necessarily an RRG recommendation for each > proposal, it still ends up being very fragmented. If we're separating the There are no rules forbidding individual contribution Internet Drafts. I am in no way whatsoever encouraging that. All I am suggesting is that the parts of the current document that describe what happened in the RRG be clearly and cleanly separated from the opinions and recommendations of the co-chairs. [[WEG]] I was not implying that there were rules forbidding IC drafts. I was actually recommending that we use that sort of a distinguisher to separate draft-irtf-rrg-* from draft-irtf-[name] (or draft-name-rrg-recommendation) so that if each of the folks responsible for the 15 different proposals feel the need to publish an IC rebuttal to the chairs' recommendation, it at least will be possible to determine which has some semblance of minority consensus support vs essentially no support beyond the authors. I think that's a worthwhile distinction, as it helps to cut the signal to noise ratio for those trying to review the final output of RRG. ...But by creating two separate documents, it would be much more clear that the recommendation is that of the co-chairs and does not speak for the members of the RRG. [[WEG]] I don't know how this would be more clear than the language already in the current recommendation draft. This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel Company proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message. _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list rrg@irtf.org http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
