Re: Process on open RFC2518bis issues

I don't think there is any communication problem,
I believe we just disagree on the appropriate way to resolve
the remaining disagreements in a limited time.

One way to do so is to play a game of "chicken" ...
set up the situation in which unless one party to each
disagreement gives in by the specified time, something
severely negative results (e.g. all the work on 2518bis
is wasted and no revision of 2518 is published).

Another way to achieve agreement is to instantiate a rule
that depends only on the facts of the issue, and not on the
personalities of the participants.

I believe Julian has proposed a sensible rule for this
situation that will produce a superior result (and be less
stressful on the participants) than would the game of chicken.

Cheers,
Geoff

Cullen wrote on 01/11/2006 11:36:08 AM:
> 
> Somehow, we continue to seem to miscommunication - perhaps we are saying 
the
> same thing
> 
> On 1/11/06 5:08 AM, "Geoffrey M Clemm" <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com> 
wrote:
> 
> >  and therefore any change to RFC2518 should by
> > default be rejected unless there is at least consensus
> 
> Let me comment on this in the simplest form I can.
> 
> If bis is includes change A, yes we will need consensus for that change.
> 
> If many people think that bis should include some other change X to 
clarify
> a problem/confusion seen with 2518 but bis does not include that, we 
will
> need consensus that bis does not include X.
> 
> We need consensus on the document. Now to get to consensus, yes I 
encourage
> the WG not to add new features, and not to be shy about removing 
features
> that don't work. 
> 
> 
> 
>