On Thu, Mar 05, 2020 at 03:55:02PM -0800, Alex Bogdanov wrote:
> To add my 2c, I am OK with the declaration of consensus for this
> draft. This draft is >2y old and had been the subject of extensive
> collaborations on the mailing list, many revisions, many working group
> meetings and last call 3
Stewart, et.al.,
First, there has been some ambivalence regarding what the issue with
an AD taking this type of decission.
- there is no doubt that an AD may take this decision, module enough
involvement in the wg and giódd understanding of the issues
- it might be discussed if the right deci
> On 2 Mar 2020, at 21:43, Sander Steffann wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>> I have no information about the situation but I do not understand why an AD
>> would be declaring consensus in any case -
>> that is normally the responsibility of WG chairs. see RFC 2418 section 3.3
>
> The only active/avail
Contributor - not co-author - but also with 6 drafts that have normative
references to the draft in question that could not proceed if this stalled
Andrew
On 03/03/2020, 00:44, "ietf on behalf of Sander Steffann"
wrote:
Hi,
> I have no information about the situation but I do n
well, that is a funky situation
thanks
Scott
> On Mar 2, 2020, at 4:43 PM, Sander Steffann wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>> I have no information about the situation but I do not understand why an AD
>> would be declaring consensus in any case -
>> that is normally the responsibility of WG chairs. see
Hi,
> I have no information about the situation but I do not understand why an AD
> would be declaring consensus in any case -
> that is normally the responsibility of WG chairs. see RFC 2418 section 3.3
The only active/available WG chair was a co-author of this draft.
Cheers,
Sander
I have no information about the situation but I do not understand why an AD
would be declaring consensus in any case -
that is normally the responsibility of WG chairs. see RFC 2418 section 3.3
Scott
> On Mar 2, 2020, at 4:30 PM, Sander Steffann wrote:
>
> Hi Ted,
>
>> Without any comment
Hi Ted,
> Without any comment on this particular instance, it is generally a good idea
> to go through an appeal of a specific decision first. My experience is that
> people do reconsider their actions in the light of appeals fairly frequently,
> and it is generally better to explore the option
Hi Sander,
Without any comment on this particular instance, it is generally a good
idea to go through an appeal of a specific decision first. My experience is
that people do reconsider their actions in the light of appeals fairly
frequently, and it is generally better to explore the option of
reco
Dear all,
The procedure to instantiate what effectively constitutes a resignation is
described in 7437 + 8713, specifically
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7437#section-7 and
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8713#section-7
Keep in mind, this is a different process than an appeal on for instance a
I won't just throw in a +1 ;)
On the serious side; following this discussion closely, I have to agree
that at the least it doesn't feel correct and as if this is the right way
of operating.
It might be correct from a procedure pov but it doesn't feel like it should
go this way.
Thanks Nick for wo
Hi Nick,
> At the very least, the consensus judgement needs to be rolled back. I
> respectfully suggest that Martin needs to recuse himself from any further
> involvement with this draft, and that he should consider whether his actions
> are compatible with continuing to be an AD.
Thank you,
Sander Steffann wrote on 02/03/2020 20:32:
Steamrolling a draft through a working group completely undermines
the whole idea of the IETF and greatly damages it trustworthiness and
reliability. By bluntly declaring consensus despite all of the
objections within two hours of the latest version of
> On 02/03/2020, 23:34, "ietf on behalf of Sander Steffann"
> wrote:
>
>Hi,
>
> I am shocked by the declaration of consensus on
> draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming by Martin Vigoureux. There was
> much discussion going on about one aspect of the draft, and there was clearly
Hi,
I am shocked by the declaration of consensus on
draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming by Martin Vigoureux. There was much
discussion going on about one aspect of the draft, and there was clearly no
consensus amongst the participants. There are still questions that haven't been
answere
15 matches
Mail list logo
