Subject: Re: last call results - process document

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 12:42:32 -0500

The original proposal was to add this:

          This Informational memo is being released to record
          the history of discussions by the Problem WG in
          2003.  While there was working group consensus on
          the portions of the document describing processes
          for short-term and medium term improvements, it
          does not represent a set of steps for longer-term
          improvements for which there was Working Group
          consensus.

which several people felt was unclear (because it is).  Here's
a revision which I think is more to the point:

          This Informational memo is being released to record
          the history of discussions by the Problem WG in
          2003.  While there was working group consensus on
          the portions of the document describing processes
          for short-term and medium term improvements, there
          no working group consensus on the proposals for longer-
          term improvements.  Those are included in the document
          as a matter of record but must not be regarded as
          recommendations from the working group.

Melinda

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 15:01:48 -0500 (EST)

works for me

--

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 14:28:30 -0800

What about all the opinions that are not part of the
record or that were removed from consideration therein?

Todd
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Bradner" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 12:01 PM
Subject: Re: last call results - process document

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:10:40 -0500

>           for short-term and medium term improvements,

no, I don't think so.  basically I don't think this document was
ever taken seriously by much of the working group, so any purported
consensus on any of the document is dubious at best.

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:58:19 -0600

FWIW, I'm also not sure that we ever had "working group consensus" on
the process document. What we DID have was reasonable acceptance of
suggestions for moving forward on the short-term stuff, and I offer as
evidence the point that almost everything proposed in 5.1 of the
document is happening now.

And, based on the low level of energy and participation in
Minneapolis, I'm not sure what "working group consensus" would look
like, these days.

Spencer

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 08:25:22 -0500

> consensus on any of the document is dubious at best.

There was near unanimity in support of the suggestions for
short-term improvement identified in the document - about as
close as I've seen to perfect consensus in an IETF working
group.  There's no consensus on the longer-term suggestions,
nor will there be (at least not in this working group) and
we're trying to come to consensus on the document itself.
That's more-or-less what we're trying to capture in the text
in question.

Melinda