- Original Message -
From: Bound, Jim [EMAIL PROTECTED]
One point I would like to make in regards to this item:
3. Were the needs of the market considered in the decision? I don't
think by all but do we ever use this bar? As I said to you once when
you were on the IESG consistency
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
|
| Don't take me wrong, I am not an air-headed academic who fails to
| understand the importance of beeing able to sell the solutions to
| people who are willing to pay for them.
Just to be very clear on this: I don't believe I have seen anyone
in the
Speaking as an outsider on this particular topic...
Is there any reason why these appeals should be single-threaded?
As much fun as it might be to continue to rotate this topic on a spit,
we've been discussing whether we actually made this decision or not
for six months. Continuing to discuss it
note that this survey was done *after* the decision was announced
as a done deal - I, for one, took that into account when I responded
From: Bob Hinden Brian Haberman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Brian Haberman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Eugene M. Kim wrote:
snip
|
| With all due respect, it seems that it would be beneficial for both
| camps (for and against SL) to hear, even now, the real concerns directly
| from the operation people and to let them participate in the decision
|
Thus spake Leif Johansson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Been there. Done that. Didn't work. This vast Moral Majority of the
Site-Locals either don't exist or live entierly behind NATs or other
boxes which prevent them from receiving the call to arms to participate
in the debate. ;-)
Or we all just got
For the record, I can't support deprecating site locals until we have
something else approved to replace them
replace them for what purpose? different people wanted site locals for
different purposes. some of those purposes are dubious. others inherently
cause harm.
we're not going to
Hi Scott,
Speaking only for myself, I would like to address a couple of the
points that you have made.
It is my opinion that there is a difference between a working group
deciding to adopt a technology and a working group deciding
to delete a technology from an existing IETF
At 02:30 PM 10/10/2003, Leif Johansson wrote:
With all due respect, it seems that it would be beneficial for both camps
(for and against SL) to hear, even now, the real concerns directly from
the operation people and to let them participate in the decision
themselves. ... snip
Been there. Done
I am saddened that it has come to this, but the IESG action has simply
prolonged the process. The only clarity in their '...somewhere to the
left...' justification is their willingness to let personal technical biases
blind them to the process failure. As such, please consider this note to be
an
Harald Tveit Alvestrand
But there's absolutely no doubt in my mind that the WG made a
decision, and that the chairs were procedurally correct in
recording that decision as the outcome of the meeting.
There many people, including some that actually _wrote_ the
procedures,
that disagree
11 matches
Mail list logo
