Return-Path: Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([unix socket]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Cyrus v2.1.11-Mandrake-RPM-2.1.11-1mdk) with LMTP; Tue, 11 Jan 2005 01:53:59 +0100 X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2 Return-Path: Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD54C61BE0 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2005 01:53:58 +0100 (CET) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 28091-01 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2005 01:53:57 +0100 (CET) Received: from montage.altserver.com (montage.altserver.com [63.247.74.122]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38AA861B95 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2005 01:53:57 +0100 (CET) Received: from lns-p19-19-idf-82-65-137-188.adsl.proxad.net ([82.65.137.188] helo=jfc.afrac.org) by montage.altserver.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.43) id 1CoAI9-0003cB-TZ; Mon, 10 Jan 2005 16:53:50 -0800 Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.2.20050110215851.0cc119d0@mail.jefsey.com> X-Sender: jefsey+jefsey.com@mail.jefsey.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.1.2.0 Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 01:53:36 +0100 To: Ted Hardie , Dave Crocker , Harald Tveit Alvestrand , From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" Subject: Re: individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no. In-Reply-To: References: <20051109058.093771@bbprime> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-4E955ADB X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - montage.altserver.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - alvestrand.no X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jefsey.com X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at alvestrand.no At 19:06 10/01/2005, Ted Hardie wrote: >At 9:00 AM -0800 1/10/05, Dave Crocker wrote: >>The way to make it obvious that there is serious community support for >>adopting an individual submission is to require that the support be >>demonstrated ON THE RECORD. > >And the point I'm trying to make is that there are multiple records. Dear Ted, I suppose you want to say there are multiple types of records, not that there could be different records at the same time. There is only one single record: the one published by the IESG. Usually it is a WG, but obviously there might be a procedure to have a private list published, when a formal WG is not deemed worth being created. Otherwise, concerned people cannot know which one is _the_ record. Also, the first community support is demonstrated by the IAB approval of the WG charter. There are already too many lists to follow. The IAB charter approval is what makes the difference between work and lobbying. Best regards. jfc