Re: [Ltru] Consensus call: extlang

["Randy Presuhn" <[e-mail]>]

Hi -

> From: "Phillips, Addison" <[e-mail]>
> To: "Randy Presuhn" <[e-mail]>; "LTRU Working Group" <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 7:51 AM
> Subject: RE: [Ltru] Consensus call: extlang
>

> > One was sent after the deadline.
> 
> If this was my vote (sent yesterday prior to your message),
> your "revised totals" appear wrong, as I voted "A,B".

The summary (with the late response) was sent out before
your much later response.  Including the three late responses
I've seen, it now comes to 
Q1 a-6 b-9 c-4 
Q2 a-8 b-6 c-5

Not the clear-cut result any of us would have liked.
(And for me, having a clear decision is much more important
than the decision itself!)

...
> This is not a situation in which either camp has a totally
> decisive argument up its sleeve.

This has been apparent for many, many months.

> While I think this is the wrong way to go (obviously, as I
> supported removing extlang), some kind of decision is desirable.

Agreed.  However, the recent discussion indicates that the group
doesn't feel much urgency in moving on.  If the decision were
solely up to me, I'd recommend shutting down the working group,
letting the people that care about it fight it out, and then let
them request a BOF at some future IETF meeting when they think
they're ready to resume work as a working group.  (This is
what happened when the SNMPv2 working group missed its charter
deadline by a far, far smaller margin.)

> As co-editor, my immediate concern is how to implement this.
> Assuming that we don't do a new round of voting and persuasion,
> I can hardly restore the text we had prior to removing extlang
> because some serious editing has occurred since then.

Agreed.

> We will need to decide what criteria are used to register and
> maintain extlangs as a result (a problem we were struggling with
> prior to the decision to remove extlang). What will be necessary,
> I think, is a stem-to-stern restore-and-edit pass with the particular
> notes of interest sent to the list. The resulting draft will then
> need to be reviewed by the list.

Sounds reasonable.
 
> If there is some doubt about whether the results of this consensus call
> will hold, I would point out that this might be a useful exercise in
> any event, as we can compare this putative "draft-15" (incorporating
> feedback from the list, of course) to the current draft-14 more directly:
> we can compare each other's cherry picking machines for elegance :-).

:-)  Since we're in "the lesser of the evils" mode, I agree it would be helpful
to work through the devilish details.
 
> Is this the decision, Randy and Martin? Or should we waffle along a bit longer?

Creating such a draft sounds good to me.  Martin, any insights?

Randy

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru