Hi Ole, > Proposals are judged on their merits. > There is no protocol police.
There is existing consensus, and changing that requires consensus on the changes. The onus is on those wanting the change, yet you demand the ones referring to the existing consensus to defend themselves. That is not their responsibility. > These proposals are not moving as far as I can see. So what are you trying to > achieve by getting your collective knickers in a twist now? Seeing extremely bad precedent being set by a chair. Chairs have the responsibility to stand up for the consensus in their working group. Always. No matter their personal opinion. No matter who they work for. Always. The discussion has been had, consensus has been reached. Requiring someone else to defend an existing consensus is disrespectful to the working group that worked towards that consensus. Sander _______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
