- 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 UTC