Re: [Roll] Wg adoption call for draft-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration

[Ines Robles <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Ok, thank you Robert for your comments.

Abdussalam, this draft
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-resnick-on-consensus-06 is about
consensus, following this I made a mistake when I said that silence doesn't
have a value. So I apologize for that, We keep the first email of the
thread, if you need answer it, please do it in a new thread, it would be
good to finish this topic here, and keep this thread with the focus in
draft-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration. Thank you for your understanding.

Kind Regards,

Ines.


2014-02-11 17:26 GMT-03:00 Robert Cragie <[e-mail]>:

>  Agreed but silence is tacit disapproval as a positive indication of
> approval is being asked for.
>
> On that note, I support adoption of draft-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration
> by the ROLL WG.
>
> Robert
>
>
> On 11/02/2014 2:04 PM, Ines Robles wrote:
>
> Hi Abdussalam,
>
>  I apologize if I didnt use the correct words, and thanks for your
> comment.
>
>  I would want to say with it, is that it is important the opinion of each
> member of the WG for that and the silence is not good.
>
>  But if you don't answer, yes, it has no value, like you say.
>
>  Thanks and Regards,
>
>  Ines.
>
>
> 2014-02-11 10:54 GMT-03:00 Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]>:
>
>> On 2/11/14, Ines  Robles <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> >Silence is a vote against
>> > adoption.
>>
>>  Why is that? usually in engineering *silence* should always have no
>> value. Against SHOULD be with engineering reason, and agreeing MAY be
>> with engineering reason.
>>
>> AB
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Roll mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing [e-mail]://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
>
>