Re: [Seamoby] Paging Protocol Decision Description

Hi Rajeev,
  There is already a positive and workable proposal:
let's have a design team open or closed whose work to be surveyed by WG 
chairs and ADs to design the protocol. We offered hosting the mailing 
list for this team.
I solicit your support to this.

Rajeev Koodli wrote:

>
>James and Pat,
>
>it seems like
>
>a) pick a candidate first and then ask WG for consensus (excluding the
>authors of submissions) against it
>as opposed to
>b) present results from assessment team and ask the WG what to do
>is causing confusion and consternation. a) is seems to be especially
>controversial because WG co-chairs picked a candidate superseeding (for
>whatever seemingly justifiable reason(s)) the assessment process which
>all submissions earnestly followed. I would have opted to do b), even
>with the milestone pressure.
>
>You might want to try
>c) allow each submission to pick a candidate from the set not including
>their own.
>    (I don't know how to break a tie if any; others may have comments)
>
>By having the larger, active folks involved in resolving the
>"indeterminate" result from the assessment team, the process can be made
>more transparent and perhaps more acceptable.
>
>Regards,
>
>-Rajeev
>
>
>
--behcet

>

_______________________________________________
Seamoby mailing list
Seamoby@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby