Hums
Disband: 0 1-step: 1 Try 1-step and 2-step same time: 0 Continue 2-step: 4 (+1)
5322 first: 3 5321 first: 3 both: 3
Whatever is ready, go.
Pete, while I appreciate the information about the WG session, especially since AFAIK neither a session summary nor any minutes have been posted to the list, I think we need to follow proper proceure here. A hum was taken at a F2F on a matter of fundamental importance to the group: What to do next. My understanding of proper procedure is that the question should then be taken to the list for further discussion and in order to check and see if the consensus on the list is the same as in the room. (And if it isn't, the list wins.) My main concern here is that I've seen zero attention paid to the point I raised, which is quite simply that the one thing the 1652bis experiment showed is that sufficient technical review of the material isn't occurring. More specifically, at least two significant technical errors were present in the 1652bis proposal and neither the WG nor the IESG caught them. Given how small and straightforward 1652bis is, this is NOT a good sign. Now, I personally don't give a crap if the WG decides on a one, two, or twenty step process as long as it appears to be doable in a reasonable time frame. I also don't care about document processing order. What I do care about is fixing up the various small issues that inevitably creep in over time and getting things advanced on the standards track. And I remain to be convinced that the current path we have tentatively selected intersects with either of those goals. Ned
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.