Re: [Pesci-discuss] Re: draft-davies-pesci-next-steps-00.txt
Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com> Tue, 21 March 2006 01:48 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FLVyj-0002wh-I0; Mon, 20 Mar 2006 20:48:09 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FLVyh-0002wc-Jd for pesci-discuss@ietf.org; Mon, 20 Mar 2006 20:48:07 -0500
Received: from mtagate2.uk.ibm.com ([195.212.29.135]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FLVyh-0007LM-64 for pesci-discuss@ietf.org; Mon, 20 Mar 2006 20:48:07 -0500
Received: from d06nrmr1407.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06nrmr1407.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.38.185]) by mtagate2.uk.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id k2L1m6m9246504 for <pesci-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Mar 2006 01:48:06 GMT
Received: from d06av01.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av01.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.37.212]) by d06nrmr1407.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.8) with ESMTP id k2L1mUXR218504 for <pesci-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Mar 2006 01:48:30 GMT
Received: from d06av01.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d06av01.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k2L1m6sK028502 for <pesci-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Mar 2006 01:48:06 GMT
Received: from sihl.zurich.ibm.com (sihl.zurich.ibm.com [9.4.16.232]) by d06av01.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k2L1m64u028495; Tue, 21 Mar 2006 01:48:06 GMT
Received: from zurich.ibm.com (sig-9-145-134-120.de.ibm.com [9.145.134.120]) by sihl.zurich.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA47358; Tue, 21 Mar 2006 02:48:04 +0100
Message-ID: <441F5B53.4040503@zurich.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 02:48:03 +0100
From: Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>
Organization: IBM
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113
X-Accept-Language: en, fr, de
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
Subject: Re: [Pesci-discuss] Re: draft-davies-pesci-next-steps-00.txt
References: <E1FEEbS-0006vO-Cl@stiedprstage1.ietf.org> <44055963.4020304@zurich.ibm.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0603191741050.26745@netcore.fi> <441ECF9B.5040503@zurich.ibm.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0603202112530.323@netcore.fi>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0603202112530.323@netcore.fi>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 4adaf050708fb13be3316a9eee889caa
Cc: pesci-discuss@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: pesci-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Process Evolution Study Committee of the IETF discussion <pesci-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pesci-discuss>, <mailto:pesci-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/pesci-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:pesci-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pesci-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pesci-discuss>, <mailto:pesci-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: pesci-discuss-bounces@ietf.org
Pekka Savola wrote: > On Mon, 20 Mar 2006, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > >> Pekka Savola wrote: >> >>> A couple of comments: >>> >>> 2.1. Change Process Proposal >>> The teams should function with an open discussion list, in the same >>> way that the PESCI team has done. The output of each team should be >>> tested against the IETF consensus in the normal fashion; we believe >>> that if there is clear IETF consensus that the proposal makes sense, >>> the IESG (and the ISOC Board of Trustees) will respect that consensus >>> and approve of it. >>> >>> ==> the consensus judged by _whom_? Did you mean rough consensus, btw? >> >> >> I understood that to mean a 4 week IETF last call and IESG approval. >> Do you >> we need a new mechanism? > > > You mean an IESG approval without a document ballot? (Probably not, but > I'm having trouble with the words "respect that consensus".) No, there's always a ballot. The IESG is always supposed to respect consensus... > > If yes, who (from the IESG) will determine whether there is IETF > consensus (consider that there may be mixed response from the IETF, so > someone will need to evaluate which concerns need to be addressed)? > > If no, this seems like the normal procedure (the previous comment still > holds though) -- but still open to personal Discuss positions. And why would it be otherwise? (OTOH the discuss-criteria document is written for technical documents. We probably need to write up the criteria for DISCUSSes on process documents. That's my insight of the day!) Brian _______________________________________________ Pesci-discuss mailing list Pesci-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pesci-discuss
- [Pesci-discuss] [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-davies-pes… Brian E Carpenter
- [Pesci-discuss] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-davies-pesci… Brian E Carpenter
- [Pesci-discuss] Re: draft-davies-pesci-next-steps… Pekka Savola
- Re: [Pesci-discuss] Re: draft-davies-pesci-next-s… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Pesci-discuss] Re: draft-davies-pesci-next-s… Pekka Savola
- Re: [Pesci-discuss] Re: draft-davies-pesci-next-s… Brian E Carpenter