Re: [tcpm] New Version Notification for draft-touch-tcpm-tcp-edo-01.txt

[Yoshifumi Nishida <[e-mail]>]

Hi Joe,

On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 8:02 AM, Joe Touch <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> On 5/2/2014 7:45 AM, Wesley Eddy wrote:
>
>> On 5/2/2014 7:18 AM, Pasi Sarolahti wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 26 Apr 2014, at 01:19, Joe Touch <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>>  I'd like to ask the chairs if we can consider a call to make this a
>>>> WG doc?
>>>>
>>>> (given the work of the group is supposed to happen on the list -
>>>> and I don't attend meetings in person these days -this doesn't seem
>>>> like it needs to wait for a meeting to proceed)
>>>>
>>>
>>> We should discuss the possible WG adoption on the list before the
>>> meeting, and some people have already voiced their support. But there
>>> is value in discussing this in the f2f meeting, too, before
>>> confirming WG adoption (hum). Perhaps Wes can present this, or as the
>>> last resort the presentation could be proxied by chairs. I don't see
>>> any reason to hurry this so that we couldn't wait until the Toronto
>>> meeting.
>>>
>>
>> That would be fine with me.  IMO, it would be nice to know what
>> the perceived mailing list consensus is, and use the meeting to
>> confirm that.  It's only a couple months away.
>>
>
> I'm not in a rush, but as a point of order:
>
>         - work happens on the mailing list, NOT at the meetings
>
>         - decisions at the meeting are confirmed on the list,
>         not the other way around
>
> That's why I don't see why we need to wait for the meeting. Meetings are
> places where we typically hash out issues that arise on the list, e.g.:
>         a. post to the list
>         b. need for interactive clarification arises
>         c. meeting supports interactive clarification
>         d. decision happens back on the list
>

I personally would like to put a line between c. and d. like:
           c1. gauge consensus from both the list and the meetings
I think having two ways to gauge consensus is good thing.
--
Yoshi