Re: Call for review of proposed IESG Statement on Examples

[Dave CROCKER <dhc2 at dcrocker.net>]

Magnus Westerlund wrote:
>     From 
> my point of view the long usage and the lack of actual reported issues 
> and minimal impact a change would have on the situation is why I cleared 
> when I finally was engaged in any discussion on the issue.


Magnus,

Offhand, it would seem as if these ought to be strong factors nearly always.  If 
folks disagree, that's probably worth discussing, since this is such a 
fundamental issue.  (It's called protecting the installed base...)

At the least, it would seem that it ought to require that a very compelling case 
be made for changing things.

From what you are saying, it swayed you at the end.  But evidently you weren't 
swayed at the start.  It might be worth understanding why not, since it might 
provide some input for better understanding these types of disconnection between 
a working group's comfort with a decision, versus and area director's dis-comfort.

d/
--

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf