 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Possibly, but it is also possible that they do not beleive that the process was observed, they may disagree as to what the consensus was.
If the wg chair is also on the iesg the appeals process is fatally compromised and littigation may be the only realistic prospect for redress.
I don't think it is possible to predict which areas are going to be controversy free, some areas such as dns and routing may be intrinsically controversy prone but that is not the point.
There needs to be an inflexible rule here. Flexibility is not advantageous.
Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good.com)
-----Original Message-----
From: Melinda Shore [mailto:mshore at cisco.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 12:26 PM Pacific Standard Time
To: todd glassey; John C Klensin; Michael Thomas; Hallam-Baker, Phillip
Cc: IETF Discussion; Jeffrey Hutzelman
Subject: Re: consensus and anonymity
On 5/31/07 3:21 PM, "todd glassey" <tglassey at earthlink.net> wrote:
> i.e. interferring with others initiatives... this is a serious issue since
> this is Tortuous Interferrence per se.
Actually, Todd, what was I thinking of was people who aren't
capable of graciously moving out of the way after they've
made their point and "lost." People who threaten lawsuits
and whatnot. They really make it extremely difficult to
finalize a decision and they poison the decision-making
process.
Melinda
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.