Re: Clarification of my comment on giving up on process issues

At 16:23 15/04/2006, Frank Ellermann wrote:
>IMHO Sam's proposal was meant to help Randy and Harald (as the
>list-moms of two affected lists), and the IESG with a certain
>"situation" (RfC 3934 not good enough, 3683 too disruptive) -
>as it turned out the IESG didn't need this and went with 3683.

Dear Frank,
having won and completed everything I needed (except two appeals to 
come), familly priorities, the desire to give time to time, and some 
calendar timing made me neither comment nor appeal yet. I explained 
this to the IESG. Everything will be carried in due time. The real 
problems (IETF ethic, IANA registry nature, deny of consensus, 
respect of people, minority status, IETF user representation, IETF 
legitimacy, IESG legal responsibilities, political nature of IETF 
under RFC 3935, etc. etc....) have not been discussed.

Without this debate I think Sam's Draft is premature and will be 
fruitless for the IETF. It is also of a certain importance to the 
interest of such a debate to identify if the IETF wants to continue 
being an acknowledged SSDO, or if it wants to become an RFC 3744 
afinity group driven lobby. The way the IESG respects the WG-LTRU RFC 
3066 Bis consensus will help evaluating this. The way the IAB will 
address my appeal will also teach us about the way RFC 3869 is to be 
understood by non-commercial R&D entities.

jfc

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf