Re: [Seamoby] Re: IP Paging Protocol

[Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]>]

It is totally unacceptable that WG cochair first said only one person is 
stating his concerns saying that others have accepted so there is 
consensus. When other people also stated then WG cochair said all those 
non accepted draft people are stating their concerns calling them sour 
grapes.

If draft-renker  is the WG draft then there is no point for us to 
discuss any further.
WG cochair is yet to post the slides.

Regards,

James Kempf wrote:

>Behcet,
>
>I will do no such thing.
>
>Please answer my question.
>
>            jak
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Behcet Sarikaya" <[e-mail]>
>Cc: <[e-mail]>
>Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 9:47 AM
>Subject: Re: [Seamoby] Re: IP Paging Protocol
>
>
>>First of all can you please announce that there is no WG draft?
>>Then maybe we can discuss how the design team should be structured and
>>who leads it.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>James Kempf wrote:
>>
>>>So, what is the difference between:
>>>
>>>a)  Forming an open design team and anyone in the working group
>>>having the right to participate with Marco as the editor of the
>>>document,
>>>
>>>and:
>>>
>>>b) The situation we are in now?
>>>
>>>Why should the design team be restricted to authors of the
>>>existing protocols?
>>>
>>>           jak
>>>
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>From: "Behcet Sarikaya" <[e-mail]>
>>>To: <[e-mail]>
>>>Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 4:35 PM
>>>Subject: Re: [Seamoby] Re: IP Paging Protocol
>>>
>>>
>>>>I think that WG chairs should not expect WG members to react more
>>>>
>than
>
>>>>what we observed so far. I reacted and pointed to one important
>>>>
>>>problem
>>>
>>>>during the meeting and continued to argue on the mailing list. The
>>>>
>>>other
>>>
>>>>WG members also have spoken out.
>>>> WG members are kind people, we do not shout and leave the meeting
>>>>
>>>room
>>>
>>>>slamming the door.
>>>> WG members prefer to kindly indicate the peaceful solution which
>>>>
>is
>
>>>two
>>>
>>>>fold, never again make such assessment irregularities and
>>>>
>>>>>We believe that the process of creating an IP paging protocol can
>>>>>
>be
>
>>>>>>substantially improved, and that the establishment in Seamoby of a
>>>>>>design team comprising the authors of the current proposal and few
>>>>>>other relevant parties is the only realistic solution (as it has
>>>>>>already happened in other IETF WGs).
>>>>>>
>>>>Regards,
>>>>
>>>>James Kempf wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>If there was an outcry on the list from others, I would be more
>>>>>inclined to view the complaints seriously. In the past,
>>>>>the Seamoby list has not been short of people who
>>>>>were ready to jump out at the first sign of a technical
>>>>>controversy and express their opinions. I have not
>>>>>seen a single one of those people, either in SLC
>>>>>or on the list, stand up publically and say that they did
>>>>>not agree with the decision.
>>>>>
>>>>>I've already agreed that the the decision process
>>>>>by which the selection was made was not
>>>>>transparent. I have some text that I have
>>>>>written which I hope will render more
>>>>>transparency to the process,  but I have
>>>>>not yet been able to get a time to
>>>>>talk with Pat and Allision about it.
>>>>>If you can just be patient, I will
>>>>>post the text as soon as we have
>>>>>had a chance to review it. Let's see if there
>>>>>are any complaints from neutral
>>>>>sources about the decision after
>>>>>I've posted that text.
>>>>>
>>>>>           jak
>>>>>
>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>--
>>>>>
>>>>Behcet
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>Seamoby mailing list
>>>>[e-mail]
>>>>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby
>>>>
>>--
>>Behcet
>>
>>
>>
>

-- 
Behcet