Vidia,
As I have said in the past, my intent was not to
"stifle" anything. It was
meant as a warning to WG participants who try to force
concensus toward
their or their company's viewpoint by recruiting volume
instead of diverse
viewpoints. This has happened during IETF WGs in the past in
which I have
been involved, and is quite common in other SDOs whose WGs
don't have the
rules allowing strong WG chair control over consensus, like
for example IEEE
802. Be assured that Phil and I won't allow this to happen
in this WG.
That's all I have to say on the issue and I would apprecate
if we could end
the thread there, so people can get back to discussing
technical issues. If
you have any further issue with this or any other process
question that Phil
and I decide upon, you can approach us privately, and if we
can't resolve
your concerns, you are welcome to talk to the INT Area ADs
about it.
jak
----- Original Message -----
From: "Narayanan, Vidya" <vidyan qualcomm.com>
To: "James Kempf" <kempfdocomolabs-usa.com>; <netlmmngnet.it>
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 10:31 AM
Subject: RE: [netlmm] Conclusion of discussion on Issue #44:
Add goal to
support make before break handover
James,
Whether we like it or not, we allow for individual opinions
at the IETF,
not any opinions tied to institutions or affiliations. That
is what
allows the IETF to function with far less politics than
other SDOs.
Stifling that is a very bad idea.
Regards,
Vidya
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Kempf [mailto:kempfdocomolabs-usa.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 12:19 AM
> To: Narayanan, Vidya; netlmmngnet.it
> Subject: Re: [netlmm] Conclusion of discussion on Issue
#44:
> Add goal to support make before break handover
>
> Vidya,
>
> The point is - we are looking for new viewpoints.
>
> jak
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Narayanan, Vidya" <vidyanqualcomm.com>
> To: "James Kempf" <kempfdocomolabs-usa.com>; <netlmmngnet.it>
> Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 2:50 PM
> Subject: RE: [netlmm] Conclusion of discussion on Issue
#44:
> Add goal to support make before break handover
>
>
> Hi James,
>
> >
> > *Please note this important qualifier. Email
addresses from
> the same
> > institution of people who have already expressed a
strong
> opinion one
> > way or the other will be discounted. I want to
hear genuinely new
> > opinions, not attempts to force the concensus in a
particular
> > direction through volume.
> >
>
> I am not sure when institution or affliation of people
> started factoring in IETF consensus/decisions, but a
question
> nevertheless - what if someone had a different
viewpoint or
> disagreed with someone else from the same institution?
Would
> you want to hear the opinion then? Or, what if someone
sent
> an email from an address that did not belong to their
organization?
>
> I understand your point about attempts to force
consensus,
> but the policy seems flawed.
>
> Regards,
> Vidya
>
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Narayanan, Vidya"
<vidyanqualcomm.com>
> > To: "James Kempf" <kempfdocomolabs-usa.com>; <netlmmngnet.it>
> > Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 12:49 PM
> > Subject: RE: [netlmm] Conclusion of discussion on
Issue #44:
> > Add goal to support make before break handover
> >
> >
> > I think this one took a lot of discussion in
understanding the goal
> > itself and its implications - but, I don't think
what was discussed
> > reflects any consensus either way (adding or not
adding)...
> >
> > So, I think the question still remains open, given
all the
> discussion.
> > It may be good to post a specific question asking
people's
> opinion on
> > adding/not adding the goal and giving another
couple of days.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Vidya
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: James Kempf [mailto:kempfdocomolabs-usa.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 11:45 AM
> > > To: Narayanan, Vidya; netlmmngnet.it
> > > Subject: Re: [netlmm] Conclusion of
discussion on Issue #44:
> > > Add goal to support make before break
handover
> > >
> > > There was a lot of opinion on both sides of
the issue. I
> > don't see any
> > > concensus to put this goal into the draft.
> > > Perhaps I should have phrased it as
"lack of concensus to
> put this
> > > goal into the draft"?
> > >
> > > jak
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Narayanan, Vidya"
<vidyanqualcomm.com>
> > > To: "James Kempf" <kempfdocomolabs-usa.com>; <netlmmngnet.it>
> > > Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 11:40 AM
> > > Subject: RE: [netlmm] Conclusion of
discussion on Issue #44:
> > > Add goal to support make before break
handover
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi James,
> > > Just curious - how do you conclude this as
the rough
> > consensus? There
> > > have been a lot of email on this topic, but
generally, I read the
> > > overall opinion as "can be done"
- so, I'm trying to
> > understand what I
> > > missed.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Vidya
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: netlmm-adminngnet.it
[mailto:netlmm-adminngnet.it]
> > > On Behalf
> > > > Of James Kempf
> > > > Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 11:06 AM
> > > > To: James Kempf; netlmmngnet.it
> > > > Subject: [netlmm] Conclusion of
discussion on Issue #44:
> > > Add goal to
> > > > support make before break handover
> > > >
> > > > Today concludes the discussion on Issue
#44. The WG rough
> > concensus
> > > > was not to add this as a requirement to
the REQ draft, so I
> > > will close
> > > > the issue.
> > > >
> > > > jak
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
_______________________________________________
> > > > netlmm mailing list
> > > > netlmmngnet.it
> > > > https://vesuvio.ipv6.cselt.it/mailman/listinfo/netlmm
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
netlmm mailing list
netlmmngnet.it
https://vesuvio.ipv6.cselt.it/mailman/listinfo/netlmm
|