Hi Ole, >> I don't think there is much room for interpretation here, but anyway I >> should ask: are you suggesting that I have attacked or been attacking >> the process? > > I would rather say taking advantage of the process. > > By reiterating the same assertive arguments again and again you contribute to > polarization. Your strategy for consensus building seems to be one of > attrition.
I resent this statement. The process is designed to put the onus of justifying changes to the proposer. The fact that Fernando has to keep repeating his objections are the failure of the process and the chairs. > If you want to help make the process work, I would encourage you to > reconsider that approach. No, the chairs need to change their approach so that objections to proposals are properly addressed (whether the chairs like the proposal or not. I have had to do that in my time as chair as well, and it's not easy but it's part of the job). When an objection has been properly, explicitly and publicly addressed, THEN you can tell people to stop posting. Sander
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
