Hi Peter - As co-chair... If you object to the way the co-chairs have chosen to conduct the process, you are free to appeal our decisions to the responsible AD. Randy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Constable" <petercon at microsoft.com> To: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn at mindspring.com>; "LTRU Working Group" <ltru at ietf.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 5:49 PM Subject: RE: [Ltru] In the interest of moving faster... From: ltru-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Randy Presuhn > In the interest of moving faster, we should choose *not* to discuss > purely editorial issues and leave them to the editors to resolve at their discretion. > That's fine during earlier stages, but that approach generally > doesn't fly at this stage of the process in groups with a history > like ours. It is precisely because of the stage that we're at that we should simply let *editorial* changes be handled by the editors and not as issues that require consensus decisions from a committee of editors. > We really need to keep the AD and (in this case) the > apps area reviewer in the loop and address the feedback > we've received from them. Fair enough. Reporting on the resolution is one thing. Using a committee consensus process to resolve the disposition of those issues is quite another. > Carte blanche to the editors > is not something I'm willing to consider I didn't mean to suggest that. Let the editors _be_ editors, make editorial changes and then they can report to us what changes they make. If they step over the bounds of editorial content, we'll surely catch them. We just do not have to bog every single decision down in a committee, consensus decision. Some issues just aren't worth it. It is far more important to bring this project to closure. Peter
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.