RE: [Seamoby] Paging Protocol Decision Description

I hope I am not offending anyone, personally I don't care about paging, with
that
said:
I agree with Cedric here, In a true democracy, you count what inside the 
ballot box, and don't assume that the rest of the population that did not
vote (excuse the word) is in either side's favor. 
If a consensus is to take place, it should be announced and then the result
should be based on on whoever voices his opinion, not based on the silent 
audience.

I am just trying to learn something from of all this, for other work items 

Madjid

-----Original Message-----
From: Cedric Westphal [mailto:cedric@iprg.nokia.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 10:45 AM
To: Pat R. Calhoun
Cc: 'Behcet Sarikaya'; seamoby@ietf.org
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:behcet.sarikaya@alcatel.com>
mailto:behcet.sarikaya@alcatel.com ] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 4:12 PM
To: seamoby@ietf.org <mailto: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 <mailto:Seamoby@ietf.org> 
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby
<https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby>  

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <  <http://www.pgp.com>
http://www.pgp.com >

iQA/AwUBPEbuLjN1fXKoxmisEQJfYwCg+H6m+Uo6ly00ONoyYOFLLtGLGbgAoNkr
5WxMNRzg0Qv02oder+oZzLGR
=GIVv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----