The only person who has really engaged the conversation during the last call
period
was the draft editor, i.e. Russ Housley (who also happens to be a Security Area
Director,
but in this case he cannot play this role).
So it is one against one and Sam is now the single Security Area Director
allowed to make a decision.
In general the activity on this mailing list is rather low.
Silence on the mailing list is rather difficult to interpret.
I do not agree with the interpretation Blake made of this silence: it like
making the dead peole talk.
I cannot understand why Russ is not wishing to try to find a compromise.
In the current situation, I believe it t would be fair to have a straw poll on
the mailing list
and raise the two topics separately. I do not expect many responses.
If you agree, I can draft the text of the two questions and propose it to you
(i.e. Sam and the co-chairs).
Denis
OK, let me back up and explain the events as I see them and try to
clarify. And I am certainly welcome to any comments or criticism about
what my role is or how I should proceed with this.
* My job as WG chair is to make sure that the editor (Russ) has created
a draft that incorporates what we consider to be the rough consensus of
the working group.
* You had some comments on this draft. Some of your comments were
incorporated. Some of your comments had zero support from the WG members
on the working group mailing list. Clarifications welcome as to exactly
who else supported these comments.
* WG last call closed over a month after your unincorporated comments
were made, which allowed plenty of time for anyone to come forward to
support your position or for any interested parties to discuss them.
* Because of this lack of interest from anyone but yourself, those
comments were considered the rough part of rough consensus and were
not incorporated. That is, you had something that wasn't working for
you, you explained your concern on the mailing list, and no one else
shared that concern.
* As WG chair, I believe that this was the right way to proceed, Sean as
co-chair was in agreement, and the draft progressed out of the working
group.
Denis Pinkas wrote:
You previously said:
I strongly suggest that you try and build consensus for these two
positions separately.
I keep trying.
I believe that Sam's recommendation was to take each issue separately
and present them clearly to others in the community, and then try to
determine what the consensus is about each issue. That is, start a
discussion, and based on the outcome of that discussion see where we
stood. This didn't happen.
Now you say:
It is the WG chairs' job to describe the reasoning for why your
comments were rejected during the WG discussion and I've asked the
chairs to do that.
This does not sound to be a way to try to build consensus for these two
positions separately. Am I missing something ?
I'm willing to accept criticism here, but it's not my job to build the
consensus for you. It's my job to determine if an issue has been raised,
and to determine if the community has had enough time to review it, and
to make sure that the author has incorporated what I believe the
consensus to be.
* You raised some issues
* No one commented on the issues
* You escalated the issues
* No one commented on the issues
* This indicates to me that these issues are only interesting to you,
and not to the WG at large, and thus does not reflect the consensus. I
mean, I'm not so bold as to say that people are in active disagreement
with your position, but I will say that no one cares enough about it to
warrant supporting it.
So I'm willing to do whatever is required here to make sure that I'm
doing my job right, and to make sure that I'm facilitating the creation
of high quality drafts. But as far as whether or not your comments have
gotten their due consideration from the working group, I will say
emphatically that I think they have.
Blake
--
Blake Ramsdell | Sendmail, Inc. | http://www.sendmail.com
Regards,
Denis Pinkas
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
