IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp> Thu, 28 May 2020 16:00 UTC

Return-Path: <jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 151CC3A0E32 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 May 2020 09:00:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.401
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id trrUFAzHr6Bg for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 May 2020 09:00:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr1-f41.google.com (mail-wr1-f41.google.com [209.85.221.41]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1F7BF3A0F9A for <6man@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 May 2020 09:00:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr1-f41.google.com with SMTP id j10so12922529wrw.8 for <6man@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 May 2020 09:00:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; 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: <8A5DB52F-5355-484D-8E70-02247C2DF88E@bell.ca> <4FE8C14C-421D-45D5-A1DE-D48E66AAC652@bell.ca> <VI1PR03MB5056782F1E77C7B5D22A8B9FEE8E0@VI1PR03MB5056.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com> <0bf27e50f7e346cd86d7b25faba75554@boeing.com> <202d9944-5f32-dd0f-cc0e-c57a7783eedd@foobar.org> <B84E5766-D9F7-431B-A7A9-2AADC70AE024@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <B84E5766-D9F7-431B-A7A9-2AADC70AE024@employees.org>
From: 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 08:59:58 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJE_bqepiyAZfuDH_5n+ZH+PMJ_t1CU598dU3xaUFdwue3HxkQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: So where have all these new 6man WG people come from?
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
Cc: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>, 6MAN <6man@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/NOHHV56MTmpC8WXGF13gwny_qM4>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 16:00:19 -0000

At Thu, 28 May 2020 17:36:53 +0200,
otroan@employees.org 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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email