Re: [Pesci-discuss] Growing concerns about PESCI

[Scott W Brim <[e-mail]>]

(limiting to pesci-discuss)

On Tue, Oct 25, 2005 12:53:53PM -0400, Leslie Daigle allegedly wrote:
> The big difference is -- there is absolutely no piece of IETF
> standards process that *requires* that the "design team" listen to any
> of the points provided on the "-discuss" list.  There is a tacit
> requirement, in that one presumes the appropriate AD will be recalled if
> the result is clearly and obviously out of step with what the community
> asks, but that's a high-risk negative motivation.

First, there is no piece of IETF standards process that requires a WG
design team to listen to WG discussion either.  They can reject it, in
which case their solution will likely be rejected.  Second, since
PESCI has no power, what is the concern?  

> So, a genuine question:  is PESCI blurring lines, or does
> this suggest that we have in fact given up on WGs/our process?

I don't know that PESCI blurs lines, but it clearly doesn't fit in the
existing ones.  However, that doesn't have to mean that we have given
up on our process yet.  I certainly hope not :-).


_______________________________________________
Pesci-discuss mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pesci-discuss