Re: Facts, please, not handwaving [Re: Its about mandate RE: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process]

[Brian E Carpenter <brc at zurich.ibm.com>]

Eliot Lear wrote:
> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
> > > We could argue this interminably or you could simply grasp the nettle
> > > and align theory with reality.
> >
> > It was clear in Montreal that there is no community consensus to spend
> > effort on doing this, so we have closed down this avenue for now.
>
>
> I'm sorry, Brian, but this answer is truly unacceptable.  Reality is
> that our 3 step process is not functioning as documented.  We thought we
> were fixing it in NEWTRK, but you shut down that group.  Please tell me
> and the rest of the community what path you expect to correct the
> error.  If you don't have a proposal I will have one of my own.

I'm not sure that I can say it more clearly than I did the first time.
I do not believe there is enough interest in this problem in the
community to invest effort in fixing it. That is quite distinct from
whether you, I or a number of other individuals believe it needs fixing.

I think you weren't in Montreal. You might want to check
the plenary minutes at http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06jul/plenaryw.html
or listen to the audio at
ftp://limestone.uoregon.edu/pub/videolab/media/ietf66/ietf66-ch5-wed-plenary.mp3

If you can build a strong constituency for a given proposal,
that might change things. But over the last few years, I haven't
seen more than a few people supporting any given proposal,
including ones that I've made, and that doesn't cut it for
something that affects every single WG.

    Brian

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf