ISSUE: Goal of problem-statement document
Jim.Bound at hp.com
Sun Jun 8 09:45:49 CEST 2003
I think long discussion on this list and clear disagreement means there is a problem. So lets call it list debate consensus?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:harald at alvestrand.no]
> Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2003 7:35 AM
> To: Spencer Dawkins; problem-statement at alvestrand.no
> Subject: Re: ISSUE: Goal of problem-statement document
> --On lørdag, juni 07, 2003 23:45:08 -0500 Spencer Dawkins
> <spencer at mcsr-labs.org> wrote:
> > I can't speak for others, but my goal here was to avoid having to
> > figure out what the IETF consensus was on a prioritized root cause
> > list before moving on any root cause. This looked like
> death to me. I
> > don't believe there are ANY scope limits on discussions about the
> > relative priority of root IETF problems, unlike our normal
> > work.
> > So I thought developing a root cause list (which we have done, at
> > least at some level) was sufficient, without spending time
> trying to
> > determine priorities. I thought this was "good enough".
> actually I tend to agree with your sentiment, but not with
> the text of the
> document as written.
> if we can formulate the text as saying "we think there is
> IETF consensus
> that this statement of root causes is good enough to guide us
> into the
> process of what to try to fix first", I think it would be better.
> What I reacted most strongly to was the statement "a vain attempt to
> achieve any sort of consensus" - we need SOME sort of consensus.
More information about the Problem-statement