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:behcet.sarikaya@alcatel.com ]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 4:12 PM
> To: seamoby@ietf.org
> 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
> Seamoby@ietf.org
> 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-----
>