Ole, While I may agree with you that is an attack on process here – and you may even find consensus on that statement – I am far from convinced you would find consensus on the question of which group is conducting the attack on process.
Andrew From: spring <spring-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of "otr...@employees.org" <otr...@employees.org> Date: Friday, 6 December 2019 at 22:14 To: Tom Herbert <t...@herbertland.com> Cc: Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org>, SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>, 6man <6...@ietf.org>, "int-...@ietf.org" <int-...@ietf.org>, Bob Hinden <bob.hin...@gmail.com>, rtg-ads <rtg-...@tools.ietf.org>, Fernando Gont <fg...@si6networks.com> Subject: Re: [spring] We don't seem to be following our processes (Re: Network Programming - Penultimate Segment Popping) Tom, > Bear in mind that quality discussion is real work by those > participating. It is a lot of effort to carefully read drafts, give > clear feedback, and respond to rebuttals. I would like to think that > the work individuals put in is justified by the outcome, and I assume > it the chairs prerogative to steer the discussion as necessary to > drive towards a discernible outcome in a finite amount of time. Absolutely. Unfortunately the IETF process is open to attacks. It appears that something akin to a proxy war is being fought. Some things has to be in place for a consensus based process to work, which looks to be missing here. While the chairs have some tools to their disposition; for this to work it requires the actors and the whole community to respect and self-police that process. How frustrating it may be for the spectators, letting it play out may be the best option we got. Best regards, Ole _______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring>
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
