Re: [Seamoby] Paging Protocol Decision Description

Hi Pat,
  So you are backing your cochair's decision to select the draft that 
received 72 marks while all other drafts received 90 or so marks. This 
means that the criteria was to select the worst draft as the WG draft. 
Since this was the case of course the worst draft  people would need 
other drafts in order to get something that makes sense.
   The catch here is how to get the other draft people to agree on this 
impossible task. This is the dilemma we are facing presently. That's why 
the pleas are being written, and even some people are being forced.
  My simple logic says this is impossible. If it is the WG chairship to 
try to achieve the impossible, please continue to try it, you won't get 
anywhere!

Regards,

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.
>
> 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-----
>

-- 
Behcet 