Re: [Seamoby] Paging Protocol Decision Description

["James Kempf" <[e-mail]>]

Cedric,

Behcet has the right to express his opinion, you are correct. But, my
interpretation of Behcet's remarks is the following:

1) That the process around the decision to select the WG draft was
murky. Others have made this
comment as well, and I agreed, several times in fact, that this was the
case. I sent out text yesterday
describing how the decision was made. Behcet's followup email had one
point about the decision
process, involving the rating numbers, which I attempted to clarify in
email, and I will put text
into the assessment draft explaining that the numbers are only designed
to compare the protocols
on a requirement by requirement basis. Perhaps I should even take the
numbers out of the
assessment draft, as they are too confusing. They were only a tool for
the assessment team, a
tool that fundamentally didn't work.

2) That the assessment process misjudged his contribution. What can I
say about this? I explained
yesterday why we we couldn't accept his design.

Now, I've made these same explainations several times to Behcet on the
list, cultivating patience, and I will continue
to do so, but, really, we need to get on with it. If you or any other WG
member has issues with the
assessment process or the selection result, please post them, but we
would really, really like to wind up
this discussion by the beginning of next week so that we can start with
the technical work. If it still seems
in our judgement that the WG is satisfied with the decision and is
satisfied with the explaination of
the decision process, then Behcet can file a grievance action with the
IESG. If there are other members
who have issues with the process or the result, then we will need to
discuss it.

If you recall last spring, Pat was beaten up by certain WG members for
running closed design teams to
do certain WG work items. At every IETF Plenium, somebody gets up and
complains about design teams.
As the text I sent out yesterday indicated, we do not consider the
current content of draft-renker
to be the final content of the draft, we consider it to be the starting
point. We would like the working
group, in a completely open fashion, to contribute to moving that
technical content forward. Now, it
seems, we are getting beaten up for *not* having a closed design team!

One simply cannot win.

            jak



----- Original Message -----
From: "Cedric Westphal" <[e-mail]>
To: "Pat R. Calhoun" <[e-mail]>
Cc: "'Behcet Sarikaya'" <[e-mail]>;
<[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 8:45 AM
Subject: Re: [Seamoby] Paging Protocol Decision Description


> Pat,
>
> Pat R. Calhoun wrote:
>
> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Behcet,
> >
> > The process, to which I provided you a pointer a few days ago,
> > clearly states that folks express their opinion on the list. Jim and
> > I will not read other mailing list archives to determine roush
> > consensus. The seamoby list is the only one we can use to gauge
> > consensus.
> >
> > Again, as Jim clearly stated, the only objection we are seeing right
> > now is yours (although you claim two other people did, and 3 is
still
> > short of rough consensus for a list that has 499 members). If we
> > guaged there was rough consensus on this issue, then we would most
> > certainly act.
> >
> First, I have not followed the debate. However, I find unacceptable
> that you would tell Behcet not to voice his opinion because he is the
> only one doing so. How do you get
> to the conclusion that the roughly 495 who are not participating in
this
> debate agree with you (and not Behcet) just because they shut up?
> Can you point to one debate where the rough consensus was reached
> by way of more than 250 favorable opinions? I have seen proposals on
> this list (say car discovery reqs, for instance) decided by 2 people
in
> favor,
> one against. For any outcome here to make sense, shouldn't the
definition
> of rough consensus be consistent?
>
> Cedric.
>
>
> > Our primary concern at this time is to get the work completed and
> > achieve our milestones. So how about we get to work and put this
> > behind us.
> >
> > PatC
> >
> > - -----Original Message-----
> > From: Behcet Sarikaya [ mailto:[e-mail] ]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 4:12 PM
> > To: [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [Seamoby] Paging Protocol Decision Description
> >
> >
> > Several people not authors of proposals (Vijay, Rene) voiced their
> > concern on the murky assessment, or am I wrong, or are you waiting
> > for
> > the sky to fall down?
> >
> > To be on the positive side, we can offer Majordomo based mailing
list
> > support for the design team, if only with no WG draft.
> >
> > Take it or leave it.
> >
> > James Kempf wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >Any such decision is always subject to WG concensus. Unfortunately,
> > >the  only voice we are hearing on the mailing list right now is
> > >yours. One  voice isn't enough for concensus, nor is text from a
> > >private email
> > >forwarded and posted apparently without the author's permission.
> > >Goodness knows, we have enough vocal people on this list. It took
us
> > >a  year to get CT requirements done (and we still don't have them
in
> > >IESG  Last Call!) because everybody had an opinion. If I were
seeing
> > >some of  these people, who were not authors of competing proposals
> > >coming
> > >forward and saying that we should change the decison, it would be
> > >another matter.
> > >
> > >                    jak
> > >
> >
> > - --
> > Behcet
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Seamoby mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby
> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <
http://www.pgp.com >
> >
> > iQA/AwUBPEbuLjN1fXKoxmisEQJfYwCg+H6m+Uo6ly00ONoyYOFLLtGLGbgAoNkr
> > 5WxMNRzg0Qv02oder+oZzLGR
> > =GIVv
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >
>
>


_______________________________________________
Seamoby mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby