![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Folks-
From my seat, this is what I have observed:
* there has been no list traffic
* there has not been any updating of the early review i-d
* there has been no clamoring for late review guidance
* the call for reviewers for the ICAR experiment netted 7 reviewers
+ plus 1 who said "ok", but never got back to me with his
information; plus another who said "as soon as I qualify"
+ and, even some of the most vocal advocates of early review didn't
belly up when the time to do so came around
* the IESG did not enthusiastically offer assistance with choosing WGs
to help seed the process
This doesn't look like a lovely picture to me. This really smells like
ICAR is something the community does not want. Or, at least does not
want to put their energy into, in practice. Joel and I would appreciate
any thoughts on moving forward (and, saying "ok, it didn't work" **is**
a path forward).
Thoughts?
Thanks,
allman
--
Mark Allman -- ICIR -- http://www.icir.org/mallman/
Attachment:
pgpmxu7DWYqT6.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Icar mailing list Icar at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar