On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 3:20 PM Sander Steffann <san...@steffann.nl> wrote: > > 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. > What consensus has been reached that you are referring to?
Tom > Sander > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > i...@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
