Re: [Autoconf] Procedure

[Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu at gmail.com>]

Thomas Heide Clausen a écrit :
> Carlos,
>
> Ok, let's try this, then, to see how much of a hurry we're really in:
>
>   o Jari, can we have our milestone moved another 5 years
>     into the future?

Thomas - can we have agenda requests for the meeting in advance?

Or are you going to decide only the DT document gets presented - despite 
the discussion on the draft-bernardos?

I noticed there's a deadline this midnight for the draft agenda.

This group never submitted agenda in advance, let alone the slides.

Can we follow - not the procedure - but some widely used IETF manners in 
this WG too?

Alex

> ;)
>
> Thomas
>
> On Wed, October 28, 2009 5:26 am, Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano wrote:
>
> > Hi Thomas,
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 2009-10-28 at 05:15 -0700, Thomas Heide Clausen wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, October 28, 2009 4:57 am, Jari Arkko wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > Alex,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > YEs I believe it is unreasonable to adopt that single document when
> > > > > a competitor document exists and which is technically more inline
> > > > > with what I think.
> > > Also, duly note that the draft-bernardos-autoconf-addressing-model
> > > document did not exist and the chairs (and the WG) were not made aware
> > > that it was under development, at the time of approval of
> > > draft-ietf-autoconf-...
> > True, we have been working on this since last IETF meeting. Had we (the
> > authors) known that we were about to adopt a document as WG draft, we would
> > have submitted it earlier.
> >
> > As I mentioned in a previous e-mail, I think it'd be better to have a
> > discussion on the content of both drafts before really deciding on which
> > one should be taken as baseline, but this is my personal opinion. Sorry,
> > but after 5 years working on this (and I've been contributing to the WG
> > since the very beginning) I don't buy the "we are in a hurry" argument
> > :-). Discussing both drafts in Hiroshima would not harm and may
> > be help.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> >
> > Carlos
> >
> >
> > > Your opinion is, however, noted.
> > >
> > >
> > > Thomas
> > >
> > >
> > > > I am aware that you wanted to see the other document adopted instead.
> > > >  But note that I said "given the opinions in the group" and not any
> > > > individual's opinion. We all know that there is no unanimous agreement
> > > >  about this, but I was curious if someone thought that the chairs had
> > > >  somehow missed that a large part of the group disagreed with the
> > > > idea of adopting the DT document.
> > > >
> > > > Jari
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Autoconf mailing list
> > > > Autoconf at ietf.org
> > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Autoconf mailing list
> > > Autoconf at ietf.org
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
> > --
> > Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano     http://www.netcoms.net
> > GPG FP: D29B 0A6A 639A A561 93CA  4D55 35DC BA4D D170 4F67
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Autoconf mailing list
> Autoconf at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf