On 4/19/2011 1:12 AM, Sam Hartman wrote: >>>>>> "Glen" == Glen Zorn <g...@net-zen.net> writes: > > Glen> On 4/16/2011 2:21 AM, Stephen Hanna wrote: > >> I agree with Katrin's count for the email poll. When combined > >> with the count from the meeting in Prague (since Alan asked for > >> only folks who didn't attend the EMU WG meeting in Prague), > > Glen> Based upon a policy that was AFAICT created out of thin air by > Glen> Bernard, who has AFAICT zero official status in emu (but, > Glen> OTOH, _has_ evinced the ability to count). > > Glen, your message lacks a certain clarity, which is to say I can't > really understand what it means.
Hmm, that's interesting. I would have thought that the use of the term 'policy' would have been a dead giveaway, but apparently not. > However, I've thrown darts randomly around the room, and managed to > find most of them where they landed, and based on that, I think you > might be saying the following: > > Bernard came up with the idea that the chairs should have a consensus > call in the meeting and ask for input from those not participating in > the meeting on the list. > You think this comes from thin air. I'm quite certain that it wasn't Bearnard's idea to have a consensus call at all, nor to "pinch-hit" for the perennially absent DeKok. > > If that was not roughly what you were trying to say, stop here and > see if you can recommend a translator I can use:-) > > If that was what you were trying to say, take a look at RFc 2418, the > BCP on working group procedures. That document requires that the sense > of the room and the list together be taken into account: decisions are > made on the list but the people in the room count there. Also, RFC > 2418's language encourages something very like what the chairs did. RFC 2418 says: In the case where a consensus which has been reached during a face- to-face meeting is being verified on a mailing list the people who were in the meeting and expressed agreement must be taken into account. If there were 100 people in a meeting and only a few people on the mailing list disagree with the consensus of the meeting then the consensus should be seen as being verified. How, exactly, is "people in the room vote and then shut up", then "people who weren't in the room vote" similar to that? That is the policy to which I referred & that apparently _was_ made up out of thin air. ...
<<attachment: gwz.vcf>>
_______________________________________________ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
