last call results - process document

[todd glassey]

Margaret
you have just run head-on into the failing of the IETF
process. That being no clear record keeping. To
demonstrate this I simply point to your commentary
below being that "as per your recollection" ...  I read
this to mean that someone else may formally "recall
something different" which is the failing I refer to.

This entity, the IETF is supposed to be a Global
Standards Agency and it needs to have something a
little more firm than the reliance on individual's
memories as the basis of how it documents consensus.

Todd Glassey
----- Original Message -----
From: <Margaret.Wasserman at nokia.com>
To: <mshore at cisco.com>; <moore at cs.utk.edu>
Cc: <problem-statement at alvestrand.no>
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 5:29 AM
Subject: RE: last call results - process document




My recollection matches Melinda's.  There was very
strong
consensus in the room (I think we were in Vienna) on
the
short-term recommendations in the process document, and
this was confirmed on the mailing list.

The WG opinion was split on the longer-term
recommendations
that were in the document at that time, and I don't
recall
that we have achieved WG consensus on any other
longer-term
solutions.

Margaret


> -----Original Message-----
> From: problem-statement-bounces at alvestrand.no
> [mailto:problem-statement-bounces at alvestrand.no]On
Behalf Of
> ext Melinda
> Shore
> Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 8:25 AM
> To: Keith Moore
> Cc: problem-statement at alvestrand.no
> Subject: Re: last call results - process document
>
>
> On Monday, December 15, 2003, at 08:10 PM, Keith
Moore wrote:
> > no, I don't think so.  basically I don't think this
document was
> > ever taken seriously by much of the working group,
so any purported
> > consensus on any of the document is dubious at
best.
>
> There was near unanimity in support of the
suggestions for
> short-term improvement identified in the document -
about as
> close as I've seen to perfect consensus in an IETF
working
> group.  There's no consensus on the longer-term
suggestions,
> nor will there be (at least not in this working
group) and
> we're trying to come to consensus on the document
itself.
> That's more-or-less what we're trying to capture in
the text
> in question.
>
> Melinda
>
>