Re: [spring] We don't seem to be following our processes (Re: Network Programming - Penultimate Segment Popping)

[Andrew Alston <[e-mail]>]

Ole,

While I may agree with you that is an attack on process here – and you may even find consensus on that statement – I am far from convinced you would find consensus on the question of which group is conducting the attack on process.

Andrew


From: spring <[e-mail]> on behalf of "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Date: Friday, 6 December 2019 at 22:14
To: Tom Herbert <[e-mail]>
Cc: Ron Bonica <rbonica=[e-mail]>, SPRING WG <[e-mail]>, 6man <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>, rtg-ads <[e-mail]>, Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [spring] We don't seem to be following our processes (Re: Network Programming - Penultimate Segment Popping)

Tom,

> Bear in mind that quality discussion is real work by those
> participating. It is a lot of effort to carefully read drafts, give
> clear feedback, and respond to rebuttals. I would like to think that
> the work individuals put in is justified by the outcome, and I assume
> it the chairs prerogative to steer the discussion as necessary to
> drive towards a discernible outcome in a finite amount of time.

Absolutely.
Unfortunately the IETF process is open to attacks.
It appears that something akin to a proxy war is being fought.
Some things has to be in place for a consensus based process to work,
which looks to be missing here.

While the chairs have some tools to their disposition; for this to work
it requires the actors and the whole community to respect and
self-police that process.

How frustrating it may be for the spectators,
letting it play out may be the best option we got.

Best regards,
Ole

_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring>