Document Blocking (Was: I-DACTION:draft-ietf-problem-process-00.txt)

[Pekka Savola]

On Mon, 19 May 2003, Bound, Jim wrote:
> > > OK here is one example not a document real-time.  multi6 is working 
> > > through their process to get to point where they can discuss next 
> > > steps for a very complex technology effort.  The WG and WG 
> > Chairs want 
> > > to meet in Vienna and multiple specs and ideas have been 
> > provided. The 
> > > WG team is working and an agenda is being worked.  The AD 
> > says we have 
> > > nothing to discuss because no proposal.  None of us agree 
> > with the AD.  
> > > The AD was asked to please be more specific what they want 
> > and all we 
> > > got so far is one liners that have no depth or explanation 
> > and what we 
> > > are doing wrong.  That is a problem.  It also is real time 
> > example of 
> > > us getting one liners in the IETF that are completely not 
> > helpful to 
> > > us in the community.  The AD should defend now their case with 
> > > explicit positioning.
> > 
> > There seems to be some misunderstanding. My understanding 
> > (after having happened to talk with Randy who doesn't have 
> > email access right
> > now) is that multi6 will be allowed 2 slots, but that a 
> > request for 3 (yes _3_) was denied.
> 
> Yep. Big time.  We did not get this on email and the chair just asked
> yesterday and I have been watching the list religiously.  But could be
> chairs agreed in last few days with Randy.  We did not even ask for two.
> We asked for one and would do the other on our own knowing how busy the
> IETF is and the ADs.  So big confusion going on here.  

I think folks are reading too much to Randy's email:

--8<--
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 18:36:38 +0200
From: Randy Bush <randy at psg.com>
To: Masataka Ohta <mohta at necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Cc: multi6 at ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: Agenda for Vienna

> So, why not have three 2H sessions and stop saying "time constraint"?

because you will need a different AD to approve it.  this wg has yet
to show good use of one session.  you don't get any pudding unless
you eat your meat.
--8<--

(The history is that multi6 has not met in about a year because there has 
not really been a good agenda, etc.)

This is a response to an individual who keeps pestering the WG to schedule 
3 sessions so he could yet again present his own proposal (among other 
things).  I may be biased in here, though..

Some may have read the message as "nyah nyah, you don't get even one
session, suckers!!".   I didn't.  I read it to say that as there hasn't 
been a plan to schedule even one session before this, it is completely 
unrealistic to now bump to 3.  So 3 is out of question, but others are 
still on the table.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings