Re: Qualifying for NomCom

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 07 April 2016 20:52 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4B9112D701 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 13:52:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eabmscIi54eU for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 13:52:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C5D4E12D608 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 13:52:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52AAC2009E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 16:56:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A411163755 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 16:52:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Qualifying for NomCom
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwZHGa5OvSmZ=bTd6AWchsm4r=QaJn2nPqD+YjeWPmH9pA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL0qLwY0FuDp5=RMFEhUMtkK=XNDxX2dogvVY7+OSy88jrrvOQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAPt1N1=SYpo-CiHoc07Ukb04Kb1LGV2=BPPyRLUsaqyLM9Hbwg@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwbhYRqw7fXHzYY0=W-CpmeHeDdaZx3z2Qg0cA2aMrmVwg@mail.gmail.com> <CAPt1N1nqmC7NJyg2M6Na8vUj8T-qObO-1gHFEXZzrobb3oOQhA@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwZHGa5OvSmZ=bTd6AWchsm4r=QaJn2nPqD+YjeWPmH9pA@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.4.2
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 16:52:47 -0400
Message-ID: <24691.1460062367@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/vckBVUZ9PjF31SbqR-uNu9sZ3u8>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 20:52:51 -0000

Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com> wrote:
    >> Right. So that's not what "consensus" means. Suggest you reread
    >> RFC 7282. It's not normative, but I think it's helpful to reread
    >> when you feel that you have failed to find consensus. It contains
    >> some good advice about getting to consensus.

    > Well let's see...

    > "Lack of disagreement is more important than agreement..." check.
    > There was disagreement with the proposals, and no better ones
    > presented available.

    > "Rough consensus is achieved when all issues are addressed, but not
    > necessarily accommodated..." check. I wasn't able to even address the
    > concerns raised, because they were valid, and again there were no
    > solid remedies proposed.

I concur with Murray: there were objections which remained open and
uncontested.

    > On the other hand, I realize now that previous thread went on longer
    > than I remembered, and there was a proposal that we (I, probably)
    > construct an RFC3933-style process experiment and let that run for a
    > while. If it works well, we can codify it by adding it to RFC7437bis.
    > So I'll do that. If anyone wants to volunteer to collaborate on it,
    > please contact me directly.

Yes, let's do that!

It would awesome if we could say definitely that the new rules
contribute to more volunteers before we actually use them.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-