RE: [Pesci-discuss] For whom it may concern..

["Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>]

I believe that process proposals need to be an exception to this.
As far as I can tell, the community will never reach rough consensus on any 
of the major process changes.
(It was hard enough to get rough consensus on minor changes.)
As I said at the meeting, while such an absence can be used as an excuse 
for not making any major changes, that would seem to be an inappropriate 
response.

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

At 11:31 AM 11/10/2005, Margaret Wasserman wrote:


>
> > We already have a lot of those.  John Klensin's review team; Harald's
> > two-level.  Alex Zinin's early review.  Maybe others I forgot.
> >
> > It's not the lack of specific proposals on a specific problem space,
> > it's the lack of follow-through.
> >
> > Based on what I've seen,
> >   - it's not realistic to assume that the IESG will drive forward such
> > a proposal, and
> >   - it's not realistic to assume the author of such a proposal would
> > drive it through all by him/herself.
>
>This can be said of virtually all proposals in the IETF (including technical
>ones).  Without a critical mass of people who are willing to work on a given
>proposal, the proposal won't go forward.
>
>I don't see why process proposals should be an exception to this...
>
>Margaret
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Pesci-discuss mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pesci-discuss


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