Re: So where have all these new 6man WG people come from?

神明達哉 <> Thu, 28 May 2020 16:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 151CC3A0E32 for <>; Thu, 28 May 2020 09:00:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.401
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.401 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id trrUFAzHr6Bg for <>; Thu, 28 May 2020 09:00:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1F7BF3A0F9A for <>; Thu, 28 May 2020 09:00:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id j10so12922529wrw.8 for <>; Thu, 28 May 2020 09:00:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=WHFVisTDQPl1+I1UXMDrtzeMR+EEWpRWsJ1EQwWvugc=; b=W2p7tW/dul9QRWr6u0auiRGtu+Dmq1qnPjiVjzV3S/36SPZcABoCblXlGYeu42QY9T UN2198AB+jzntdB77EjO9I8f7l1OjBOIAnpErIMQYrRw2bVyJ0bQYFEQkgOvIUDUR+Qt zKmWwaGgd4O6kKi+R7ojoh/YxQdSwiTkO37lgITmdSM6nuvj48DqkwMBUjISyeQc1Aic TCagbDwRnWMBmx7HDoAxtJscW128cXgAKqEM6/yeSDKXwLzVUy6TH8AE7VpD8HTzQUjw 6u7dOj6r79Xqe7dvJkGGE3WH7pWRM8g5dWPcwmk8ASt4tNTywTd2zl3nLYAxW0q7ezSM 0jrw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532coeTGBww2yfjwqMW9TAB1Sm/F0Ksi5AxzE5nDjb/XZCdlje2G RpPv3pruDwdXCo7eZO360V2dUB599MQkf2jWZj8xaeFH
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwCmDWTKaJP0ShhNOXvizRaa/tIG09F4qzCpgFo9DRYk3tNsrsKknWHManTsLAOmmzoGpdEnw45fXXOqVi0ZKg=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:49c4:: with SMTP id t4mr4058469wrs.127.1590681610375; Thu, 28 May 2020 09:00:10 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: =?UTF-8?B?56We5piO6YGU5ZOJ?= <>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 08:59:58 -0700
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: So where have all these new 6man WG people come from?
To: Ole Troan <>
Cc: Nick Hilliard <>, 6MAN <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 16:00:19 -0000

At Thu, 28 May 2020 17:36:53 +0200, wrote:

> Indeed.
> How though, is the difficult part. Trying to mediate leads to being dragged into the conflict, accused of taking sides and losing credibility.

I think we could at least discount the "blatant" +1's in adoption or
last calls in terms of assessing rough consensus.  Even if a simple
"+1" is really all one can say in response to the call, they should at
least be able to provide a short summary of their understanding on
what's proposed and why they support or don't support it *in their own
words*.  Chairs could clarify at each call that blatant responses that
don't even meet the minimum due diligence will be rather considered as
a "-1" for the chair's consensus assessment.

Maybe we'll then just see a flood of some marketing or company agenda,
but hopefully this will result in having more constructive technical
discussions, while discouraging those (if any) just fighting a proxy
war to post the blatant reply.

JINMEI, Tatuya