W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > January to March 2005

Re: WG Last call for BIND

From: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 07:36:25 -0500
To: " webdav" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OFE95A2323.CC1E9517-ON85256F87.0044E42A-85256F87.00453F6E@us.ibm.com>
I'm happy with all of Joe's answers, so I'm +1 for the process
(in the spirit of getting rough consensus on the process for
determining rough consensus :-).

BTW, I encourage folks to review the outstanding issues against
2518bis, and vote for the ones you care about.

Cheers,
Geoff


Joe wrote on 01/12/2005 01:37:13 AM:
> 
> > I share Julian's concern that the lack of a "vote against" feature 
> > makes the bugzilla voting mechanism not very useful/appropriate for 
> > specifications issues.  The policy of limiting the number of votes 
> > (currently set to just 1) further limits the utility of this mechanism 

> > (and encourages bundling all of ones issues into a single "report" so 
> > that you can vote for all of them without spending multiple votes).
> 
> Sorry about that.  I've set the max votes to 100.
> 
> > I also share his puzzlement over the "you can't reopen an issue unless 

> > you want to" rule (:-).
> 
> Hopefully I clarified that in my response to him.
> 
> > A key point is how one determines rough consensus (since the voting 
> > mechanism doesn't help with that).  Any thoughts on how that would be 
> > determined?
> 
> Chair omniscience.  :)
> 
> Seriously, if there are multiple camps that can't come together, we'll 
> have to keep working.
> 
> I'll suggest again that those who want these drafts to continue to make 
> forward progress would benefit from coming to an IETF meeting and doing 
> some good old-fashioned politics.  Meet people.  Make friends.  Explain 
> your point of view.  Relationships, trust, and respect can drive a 
> group towards consensus.
> 
> http://ietf.org/meetings/IETF-62.html
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 12 January 2005 12:37:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:07 GMT