I won't just throw in a +1 ;) On the serious side; following this discussion closely, I have to agree that at the least it doesn't feel correct and as if this is the right way of operating. It might be correct from a procedure pov but it doesn't feel like it should go this way.
Thanks Nick for wording it better :) Regards, Melchior On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 9:57 PM Nick Hilliard <n...@foobar.org> wrote: > Sander Steffann wrote on 02/03/2020 20:32: > > Steamrolling a draft through a working group completely undermines > > the whole idea of the IETF and greatly damages it trustworthiness and > > reliability. By bluntly declaring consensus despite all of the > > objections within two hours of the latest version of the draft being > > published I feel that Martin Vigoureux has lost the credibility as an > > AD. I strongly feel a resignation is in order at this point. > > There's been a really serious breach of due process here. The issues > that cropped up on around draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming are > subtle and not easily resolved. What is beginning to emerge as > consensus is that there are underlying problems with 8200 that need > examination and careful resolution. > > Frankly, it is rather difficult to see how the srv6 draft can progress > without this clarification. > > For sure there's no basis for someone to throw a couple of extra > sentences into a draft and then for an AD to declare consensus two hours > later - and before anyone's had the chance to even read the draft. > > At the very least, the consensus judgement needs to be rolled back. I > respectfully suggest that Martin needs to recuse himself from any > further involvement with this draft, and that he should consider whether > his actions are compatible with continuing to be an AD. > > Nick > >
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
