Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.2.20050408163329.04eb31d0@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 17:09:18 +0200
To: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>,
	"LTRU Working Group" <ltru@ietf.org>
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Prepare for a burst of issue-tracker messages
In-Reply-To: <000701c53b34$106acca0$7f1afea9@oemcomputer>
References: <000701c53b34$106acca0$7f1afea9@oemcomputer>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: 
Precedence: list
Sender: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org

At 07:38 07/04/2005, Randy Presuhn wrote:
>Hi -
>(Co-chair hat ON)
>Due to the large number of issues that have come up on this list,
>and due to the terrible job we've all been doing of starting new
>subject lines when we raise new issues, we'll try using an issue
>tracker.
>
>I've gone through the archives to identify issues.

Dear Randy,
I have received 50 mails from you as a co-Chair in 2 hours. I have spent 8 
hours of telephone exchanges, discussion with partners, calls to 
international oganisations and writing to respond to one (on respect of ISO 
bilingualism).

I am sure that if you used your co-chair hat it is because each of your 
mail is of equivalent interest. They will also probably lead to a debate. I 
therefore expect that all the pending issues calls at least for a 400 hours 
involvement.

I also note that - as far as I understant the system - you declared a rough 
consensus, and a point resolved, (IRT 3166 and 1988) when you get one 
positive response within 3 hours, and document it through a non explicit 
example.

This is beyond what I can dedicate to the search of a consensus concerning 
the APMD Draft.

jfc


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru