Hi Ole, > I don’t see a need to continue this debate on meta issues, but since you > framed this as criticism of me in the chair role I found it required to reply.
Following up now that I had some rest :) I consider you a friend, and I respect you a lot. Which is why the way you were approaching this discussion surprised (and to be fair annoyed) me so much. It is not something I would expect from you. Which is why I kept silent for a while but in the end decided I should speak up. Being a chair brings great responsibility, and the first and foremost responsibility is to the working group. Part of that is steering discussions, upholding previously attained consensus so that their value/validity is not challenged over and over again, wasting a lot of time and energy of working group participants. I'm not saying that consensus can never change, but doing so needs proper timing and discussion. Reevaluating consensus on a topic too often leads to a "revised consensus by attrition", which is not in the working groups interest. I still support you as a chair, and I am sure you can maintain the balance between stability and flexibility. As a friend I just felt that I should tell you I disagree with your approach. Friends should be honest to each other :) Cheers, Sander
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
