Re: Conclusion of the last call on draft-housley-two-maturity-levels

[Hector <[e-mail]>]

Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 2011-09-11 08:11, Sam Hartman wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
>> I do not think the following types of comments should be considered as
>> objections when judging this sort of consensus:
>>
>> 1) You are not solving the most important problem
>>
>> 2) This will not do any good
> 
> Exactly. A very large part of the discussion has not been relevant
> to the Last Call of this particular version of this particular
> draft. In deciding the question, the IESG only needs to look
> at comments that are relevant.
> 
> There are many other issues in 2026 that probably need attention,
> but as we've learnt over the last N years, trying to tackle them
> simultaneously is manifestly impossible.

Please trust there is no disrespect in stating this but this *sounds* 
like there is a realization that the reasons for problematic stagnant 
proposals are now going to be view as non-valid reasons.

I don't have a particular concern if that is used for progressing and 
"labeling" proposals with a new status, but I am weary if that idea is 
used to circumvent the initial concerns.

--
HLS