Subject: deadlock problem

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 15:10:05 -0400

On page 10 of draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-04.txt in the paragraph
with sub-heading "4.", there is a process problem.

The Nomcom WG needs to revise this text in order to avoid retaining an
existing deadlock state in the confirmation process.  My concern is NOT
hypothetical -- it describes a situation which actually arose during
my 4 years on the IAB.

Facts:
	- Some IAB members have abstained from some or all votes
	  to confirm IESG nominees from the Nomcom.
	- The current text description requires at least half
	  of the IAB to agree either on confirmation or rejection
	  of each IESG nominee.
	- Some instances of the IAB have been unable to get at least
	  half of the IAB onto either of those positions -- in part
	  because of abstensions by one or more sitting IAB members.
	- This means that the IAB was unable to meet the process rule
	  currently specified.

Observation:
	I see 4 fairly obvious ways to prevent a deadlock state.  More
fixes might also exist.  The current process text should be changed such
that no deadlock states can exist.

	Personally, having been down this road 4 times, I prefer fix (A)
below -- on grounds that if a candidate is so controversial that at 
least 50%
of the confirming body is not actively supportive of a given candidate
then that candidate is clearly not the best choice for the Internet
community.  However, ANY fix that removes the possibility of deadlock
in the confirming body is acceptable to me.

Each proposal deletes the existing sentence:
		At least one-half of the sitting members of the confirming bodies
		must agree to either confirm or reject each individual nominee.

and instead substitutes the new text:

(Proposal A)
		For a given nominee to be confirmed, at least one-half of the sitting
	     members of the confirming bodies must agree to confirm that 
nominee.
	     Nominees that are not confirmed under this rule are considered to 
be
		rejected.

xor (Proposal B)
		For a given nominee to be rejected, at least one-half of the sitting
	     members of the confirming bodies must agree to reject that 
nominee.
	     Nominees that are not rejected under this rule are considered to 
be
		confirmed.

xor (Proposal C)
		For a given nominee to be confirmed, at least one-half of the sitting
		members who do not abstain from voting on a particular nominee must
		agree to confirm that nominee.  Nominees that are not confirmed under
		this rule are considered to be rejected.

xor (Proposal D)
		For a given nominee to be rejected, at least one-half of the sitting
		members who do not abstain from voting on a particular nominee must
		agree to reject that nominee.  Nominees that are not rejected under
		this rule are considered to be confirmed.

Yours,

Ran Atkinson
[email-masked]

Sitting IAB member from Spring 1999 to Spring 2003.

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 15:31:00 -0400 (EDT)

I like A

(Proposal A)
     For a given nominee to be confirmed, at least one-half of the sitting
     members of the confirming bodies must agree to confirm that nominee.
     Nominees that are not confirmed under this rule are considered to be
     rejected.

Scott

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 21:42:04 +0200

> hypothetical -- it describes a situation which actually arose during

Speaking only for myself....

I still hold to the position that it's inappropriate for this body to 
dictate voting rules in other bodies - that there's no reason to require 
the IAB and the ISOC Board to have consistent rules, even.

If the community does not agree with me, any choice would do, and I agree 
with Ran that we should fix the language.

                Harald

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 16:30:04 -0400

Igor,

Of course, I have no objection to fixing the grammar (or spelling,
if I made an error there :-).

Does this mean you concur with Scott (and me) that the WG
should adopt Proposal A ?

Ran

On Monday, May 12, 2003, at 16:27 America/Montreal, Igor Faynberg wrote:
> I propose a nit in-line (because there is only one confirming body in 
> each
> specific case)
>
> Igor
>
> Scott Bradner wrote:
>>
>> I like A
>>
>> (Proposal A)
>>      For a given nominee to be confirmed, at least one-half of the 
>> sitting members of the confirming
>
>> bodies
>
> Change to "body"
>
>> must agree to confirm that nominee.
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>> manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/subscribe>

---

From: Igor Faynberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 16:27:19 -0400

I propose a nit in-line (because there is only one confirming body in each
specific case)

Igor

Scott Bradner wrote:
> 
> I like A
> 
> (Proposal A)
>      For a given nominee to be confirmed, at least one-half of the sitting members of the confirming

Change to "body"

---

From: Igor Faynberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 16:33:42 -0400

Ran,

Absolutely, I concur with you and Scott.

Igor

---

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 07:45:46 +0900

From the chair:

The last time this issue was discussed I felt there
was no consensus and therefore things were left as written
in RFC2727.

To achieve consensus this time around, I ask that a lot of
people on this list please speak up on the issue and see if we
can't mostly convince ourselves that one option is really the
right option.

You have been given lots of options from:
- doing nothing and leaving it as written in RFC2727 and 2727bis,
- to making one of the changes {A-D} Mike suggests,
- to removing the clause altogether and leaving it up to
   the CB to determine it own processes as Harald suggests.

Since I would like to take this doc to WG last call as soon
as possible, please respond in the next couple of days.  It
would be really nice to hear from a large cross-section of
the list participants instead of the  same few who always
step-up and contribute.  I plan to try and determine the
state of consensus by the end of the week.

Thanks

a.

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 18:51:30 -0400

I believe that the best alternative would be to remove the clause 
altogether, as per Harald's suggestion.
Failing that, I could probably live with any of the choices give by Mike, 
but would lean towards choice A (1/2 the CB must support the candidate) 
slightly.

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

---

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 09:05:48 +0900

Correction below

> the list participants instead of the  same few who always

Not instead of, but in addition to.
I don't know what I was thinking.
Meant to say ... instead of only the same few ...

Apologies to the few!!!

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 00:11:54 -0400

Repeat after me... Ran is not Mike... Ran is not Mike... :-)  Referenced 
email was Ran's....

Mike

---

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 23:32:53 -0700

Michael and all,

  Well thank you for this enlightening revelation Michael!  >;)

  But it seems that you are prone to some sort of obsessive
compulsive disorder...  Work on it will ya!  >:/

> >state of consensus by the end of the week.

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!)
================================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 07:30:00 +0200

I would prefer to remove the rule completely and leave the
CBs to set their own rules.

If we don't remove the rule, I would support (A) which is
effectively the status quo.

   Brian

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian E Carpenter 
Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM 
On assignment at the IBM Zurich Laboratory, Switzerland

---

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 09:41:06 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Speaking for myself, the NOMCOM document should not say anything about
the voting rules of a confirming body.

However, if that's not possible I only agree with the first sentence of
Ran's Proposal A because the second sentence is a fundamental process
change and I object to it.

In its entirety, Ran's Proposal A is:

    (Proposal A)

    		For a given nominee to be confirmed, at least one-half
    	     of the sitting members of the confirming bodies must agree
    	     to confirm that nominee.  Nominees that are not confirmed
    	     under this rule are considered to be rejected.

The first sentence is fine insofar as it removes the ambiguity without
removing the "positive" intent of the original statement.

However, the second sentence presents a rule that has not been discussed
during this revision.  Further, it gives control to the confirming body
because now if they don't like a candidate all they have to do is not
vote (thus not take responsibility for their decision).

This document is largely ambiguous when it comes to a tie, and I would
argue this is by design.  Over the years we have resolved some conflicts
and ties, but generally we resolve them in favor of the NOMCOM, not the
confirming body.  For example, in the case of a mid-term vacancy the
failure of confirming body to actually confirm a candidate results in
automatic confirmation, not rejection.

The second sentence resolves the conflict (or indecision) in favor of
the confirming body and I think this is wrong.

Jim

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 09:28:06 -0400

On Tuesday, May 13, 2003, at 01:30 America/Montreal, Brian E Carpenter 
> CBs to set their own rules.

During my time on IAB, (at least once) a lack of pre-planning (e.g. with
respect to handling 'abstain' votes) by the collective IAB (i.e. what
happened is really no one's fault) created serious issues in convergence
on one or more IESG nominees.

Based on that experience, I think that it would be a disaster to have
the confirming bodies set their own rules.  Instead of having a 
straight-
forward confirm/reject/abstain vote with a clearly defined outcome,
letting each CB set their own rules has strong potential for (1)
different procedures each year and (2) individuals trying to arrange
the rules in a given year to favour particular nominees.  In short,
letting each CB set their own rules would reduce consistency 
year-to-year
and would increase the political quotient of the confirming activity.
I view increasing the political quotient of anything in the IETF
to be a bad result.

By contrast, having a small number of simple, clearly defined, rules
would tend to reduce the political quotient and help ensure consistency
in the procedures from one year to the next.

> effectively the status quo.

I wish it were the status quo.  Thanks for that support.

Ran

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 16:22:35 +0200

> on one or more IESG nominees.

But that is another matter. The IAB *has* a defined voting rule
in its own charter, and the ISOC Board has voting rules in the by-laws.
So your rules (A or others) simply create scope for ambiguity with
those existing rules.

> I view increasing the political quotient of anything in the IETF

Yes, so maybe the NomCom doc should simply state that each confirming
body must apply its own standard voting rule, first to confirm the entire
slate, and if that fails to confirm individuals.

I don't agree with Jim that defining failure to confirm as equal to 
rejection is a process change; that's simply been undefined in the 
past. Ran is correct that it prevents a theoretical deadlock.
> in the procedures from one year to the next.

Nothing will inject common sense if it is absent.
> I wish it were the status quo.  Thanks for that support.

It's pretty close to the status quo. You must have had
a bad experience.

    Brian

---

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 11:27:13 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Actually, it does not prevent a theoretical deadlock for two reasons.

First, there is no fixed timer on when the vote needs to be completed.
There's the general notion of being done prior to the First IETF, but
there's no failsafe when that deadline is not met.

Second, even if you assume or create a timer, the document simply states
that the NOMCOM is to identify alternate candidates for rejected
candidates.  Another existing ambiguity is whether or not the NOMCOM can
re-submit the same candidate.  In the past they have, and if they do we
still have deadlock.

Even so, I won't press the point of whether it's a process change, per
se, but I will re-iterate that it shifts the "balance of power," albeit
imcompletely.

A purpose of the NOMCOM is to represent the voice of the community.  I
believe that ties or ambiguities should, in general, be broken or
resolved in favor of the NOMCOM.  To suggest that the inaction or
indecision of the confirming body is a fair result against the hard work
of the NOMCOM is wrong in my opinion.

Jim

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 11:33:23 -0400

If your concern is about the balance of power, then Ran's alternative B 
would meet your goal.  That stated that it takes 1/2 to reject, and the 
lack of rejection in the vote would constitute acceptance.

I am uncomfortable with the notion that a canddiate would be accepted who 
was not good enough to get 1/2 of the IAB to agree that he should / could / 
would do the job.

The current IAB voting procedures do have a state where the IAB can not 
make up its mind.  Assuming that we remove the current paragraph, the 
question is whether we need an extra impetus in  this document to ensure 
closure in the confirming body(ies)

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 11:48:06 -0400

>So your rules (A or others) simply create scope for ambiguity with

Speaking plainly.  The IAB does NOT have a voting rule, it has a consensus 
fuzzy feeling sort of thing.

>3.5 Decision taking
>
>    The IAB attempts to reach all decisions unanimously.  If unanimity
>    cannot be achieved, the chair may conduct informal polls to determine
>    consensus.  The IAB may make decisions and take action if at least
>    seven full members concur and there are no more than two dissents.

In the context of the confirmation, if there are two dissents (e.g. we 
don't want to decide yet), the IAB can take NO action.  E.g. it can neither 
confirm, nor reject.

The rule as written in the IAB charter is an interesting statement of 
desire, but pretty useless when applied to situations where the IAB must 
absolutely come to some decision.

Another example - appeals.  An "action" on an appeal may be framed either 
as a decision to uphold or reject.  Depending on how its framed, the 
"decision" could go either way with the same set of votes.

The IAB charter is not and should not be the controlling document here.  It 
neither explicitly considers the case of confirmation, nor does it provide 
enough rigor for the IAB to actually come to a result in all possible 
situations.  It would be appropriate and useful for the NOMCOM document to 
provide specific guidance, but allow the confirming bodies to override the 
guidance if they issue written procedures.  "Absent any written procedures 
by the confirming bodies which explicitly mention and consider the 
confirmation process, the confirming bodies shall require an affirmative 
vote by the majority of the qualified members of that confirming body to 
confirm any given candidate.  A member MUST disqualify themselves from 
voting on any question of their tenure in office or confirmation."

In any event, if the nomcom document doesn't say anything about this, I'll 
be proposing an IAB charter mod for this.  I think its the wrong answer, 
but I'm too tired to fight any more.

So... Brian, do you expect the IAB charter to be a normative reference for 
the NOMCOM document?  The ISOC charter?

*sigh*

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 11:41:52 -0400

On Tuesday, May 13, 2003, at 10:22 America/Montreal, Brian E Carpenter 
wrote:
> in its own charter,

I'll quote that section of RFC-2850, which is Section 3.5:

    3.5 Decision taking

    The IAB may reach decisions by face to face meeting, teleconference,
    Internet communication, or any combination of the above.

I'll note that this text also has a deadlock state whenever more than 2
dissent and at least 7 full members concur.  This condition has occurred
more than once during my time on the IAB with regard to confirming
nominees -- though it was never the process used for confirming 
nominees.

That deadlock might not be harmful -- and might even be desirable --
in the case where a purely architectural question is at hand.  Such
deadlock would actually be harmful in the special case of confirming
IESG nominees -- the question at hand.

> So your rules (A or others) simply create scope for ambiguity with

If it were out-of-scope for the IETF Nomcom process RFC to explain
how many votes are sufficient for approval/rejection of a nominee,
that is something that could and should have been raised *years and
years ago* by either ISoc BoT or IAB.

I do not believe that any of the 4 proposed corrections to the current
text creates new scope for ambiguity.  Please explain.

> slate, and if that fails to confirm individuals.

I don't think that really eliminates the deadlock.  Further, it means
there isn't reliable consistency from year to year -- as the IETF
community expects (and has reason to expect).

> past. Ran is correct that it prevents a theoretical deadlock.

Thanks.  It is not a fundamental change in the actual process,
but rather a minor technical clarification to prevent a (not so
theoretical) deadlock state.

I'll note that
	(B) has an inverted bias to (A) with regards to how "abstain" votes
	impact the result
&& that
	(C) or (D) remove any result bias from the "abstain" vote.

I created 4 options to try to help focus the list conversation
on list -- and to make clear that multiple fixes exist and that
any of those would be acceptable to me.

> Nothing will inject common sense if it is absent.

Common sense isn't the issue.  A common understanding of the process
to follow and avoiding legislated deadlock states are the issues.

> It's pretty close to the status quo. You must have had

Painful to watch close-hand, at a minimum.

Summary:
	To go back to my original primary point, the problem that needs to
be fixed is the deadlock state in the current draft.  There are several
ways to do so.  This WG needs to pick a single way to fix the problem.

Ran's bottom line:
	I can live with anything that eliminates the deadlock state.

Ran Atkinson
[email-masked]

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 11:53:37 -0400

On Tuesday, May 13, 2003, at 11:33 America/Montreal, Joel M. Halpern 
wrote:
> The current IAB voting procedures do have a state where the IAB can 
> not make up its mind.

Yes.  And this is not necessarily a problem with regards to an
architectural or technical question.  It really is a problem with 
respect
to the narrow question of confirming IESG nominees.

> Assuming that we remove the current paragraph, the question is whether 
> we need an extra impetus in this document to ensure closure in the 
> confirming body(ies)

Before this WG went down the path of just deleting the current broken
paragraph, it would be important (IMHO) for this group to have specific
assurance from the IAB collective or the IAB Chair that a prompt effort
would be undertaken to eliminate the current deadlock state --with 
respect
*only* to confirming IESG nominations-- (i.e. IAB could deadlock on
everything else if they desired, just no deadlock on a confirmation
of an IESG person).

In practice, the resulting change to the IAB charter would likely be
similar to one of (A) through (D), even if not identical to any of
them.  However, potentially, the chosen IAB resolution would represent
a major change (e.g. if the IAB decided that a 3/4 majority of IAB
members were needed to confirm a given IESG candidate).

I think it is more practical and simpler for this WG to specify some
deadlock-free specific process than to delete the text entirely and
have things blowing in the wind.

IMHO,

Ran
[email-masked]

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 12:04:57 -0400

On Tuesday, May 13, 2003, at 11:48 America/Montreal, Michael StJohns 
wrote:
> It would be appropriate and useful for the NOMCOM document to provide 
> specific guidance, but allow the confirming bodies to override the 
> guidance if they issue written procedures. 

>  "Absent any written procedures by the confirming bodies which 
> explicitly mention and consider the confirmation process, the 
> confirming bodies shall require an affirmative vote by the majority of 
> the qualified members of that confirming body to confirm any given 
> candidate.  A member MUST disqualify themselves from voting on any 
> question of their tenure in office or confirmation."

This seems like a reasonable compromise.  For the would-be lawyers 
among us,
it lets the confirming body explicitly create rules which would take
precedence (if that body so desires), yet for the practical among us it
provides a good workable process.

I would further state that the confirming body's process (if created)
ought to be required to be free of any deadlock state -- since we know
experimentally that deadlocks are real rather than theoretical issues.

> So... Brian, do you expect the IAB charter to be a normative reference 
> for the NOMCOM document?  The ISOC charter?

Certainly I would expect them to be normative references iff the 
decision
is to delete the current paragraph -- on grounds that the actually
define part of the Nomcom procedures.

Is the ISOC Charter published in an RFC anyplace where it would be
widely accessible ?  If not, then maybe that also should be undertaken,
particularly given the new role of the IAB in putting folks on the ISOC
BoT.

Ran
[email-masked]

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 18:24:20 +0200

Michael StJohns wrote:
...
> In the context of the confirmation, if there are two dissents (e.g. we don't want to decide yet), the IAB can take NO action.
> E.g. it can neither confirm, nor reject.
> 
> The rule as written in the IAB charter is an interesting statement of desire, but pretty useless when applied to situations
> where the IAB must absolutely come to some decision.

True, unless the IAB chooses to exercise common sense.

...
> 
> So... Brian, do you expect the IAB charter to be a normative reference for the NOMCOM document?  The ISOC charter?

No. I think we should simply avoid the potential for inconsistency by
*not* defining IAB or ISOC voting rules in two different places. That doesn't
imply a normative reference. But I've said that often enough now. Ultimately 
it doesn't matter, because if common sense can't be relied to resolve potential deadlocks, then no amount of document tweaking
will help us.

Therefore, I won't object to the A) version at last call. 

   Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 18:26:46 +0200

RJ Atkinson wrote:
...
> widely accessible ? 

http://www.isoc.org/isoc/general/trustees/bylaws.shtml

   Brian

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 12:50:44 -0400 (EDT)

RJ Atkinson wrote:
...
> Is the ISOC Charter published in an RFC anyplace where it would be

RFC 2134 & 2135

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 13:02:49 -0400

On Tuesday, May 13, 2003, at 12:24 America/Montreal, Brian E Carpenter 
> True, unless the IAB chooses to exercise common sense.

Brian,

	Lack of common sense has never been evident on the IAB, AFAIK.

	Despite that, deadlock HAS been evident.  One might legitimately
abstain for common sense reasons.  Individuals might legitimately have
different views on a given candidate for common sense reasons.  The
intersection of that has lead to deadlock under the current process rule
(and would lead to deadlock on the relevant section of the IAB Charter's
decision process, as several folks have outlined to this list).

	Repeating that common sense will avoid deadlock doesn't make that
statement true nor even make the two pieces of that claim related to 
each other.

> *not* defining IAB or ISOC voting rules in two different places.

They are unrelated kinds of voting rules, so no inconsistency exists
right now -- nor would any of the proposed edits create an 
inconsistency.

> Therefore, I won't object to the A) version at last call.

Thanks.

Ran Atkinson
[email-masked]

---

From: Theodore Ts'o <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 13:06:09 -0400

>   the CB to determine it own processes as Harald suggests.

My preference would be

 - to remove the clause altogether and leaving it up to
   the CB to determine it own processes as Harald suggests.

followed by

 - change A as suggested by Ran

Either is fine with me, with a slight preference towards the first.

					- Ted

---

From: Theodore Ts'o <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 15:22:42 -0400

Ran,

I'm not too worried about this.  *If* the IAB were to deadlock badly
enough that IESG members could not be seated in time for the first
IETF meeting, it would look really bad and be very embarassing for the
IAB ---- and no doubt, the following year's nomcom would be asking
some very hard questions about the sort of people that were serving on
the IAB such that the process could break down so badly.  At the very
least, such a breakdown would likely cause the IAB to seriously
reconsider concerning its own internal processes that allowed such a
deadlock to happen in the first place.

So if it happens, it can be fixed, either by fixing the IAB
procedures, or by having the following year's nomcom fix the personnel
problem.  And if it doesn't happen, well, then we didn't need to fix
anything, did we?  :-)

So I'd just remove the rule, and let each confirming body take the
responsibility (and part of responsibilty is the possibility of
getting whacked if you screw up) determine its own decision-making
procedures.

						- Ted

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 15:49:31 -0400

On Tuesday, May 13, 2003, at 15:22 America/Montreal, Theodore Ts'o 
wrote:
> responsibility ...

This sounds like:
	1) you believe the current confirmation process text is broken
	2) your preferred fix is to delete the current process text

Correct understanding ?

Thanks,

Ran

---

From: Theodore Ts'o <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 16:04:40 -0400

> 	2) your preferred fix is to delete the current process text

Yes, that is correct.

					- Ted

---

From: Donald Eastlake 3rd <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 22:14:34 -0400 (EDT)

I agree with Ted. It's the responsibility of the Nomcom and the 
confirming bodies to work it out. We get to specify the Nomcom rules. 
The confirming bodies should specify their own rules.

Thanks,
Donald
======================================================================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd                       [email-masked]
 155 Beaver Street              +1-508-634-2066(h) +1-508-851-8280(w)
 Milford, MA 01757 USA                   [email-masked]

On Tue, 13 May 2003, Theodore Ts'o wrote:

> Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 15:22:42 -0400
> From: Theodore Ts'o <[email-masked]>
> To: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
> Cc: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: deadlock problem
>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 09:23:58 +0200

We should obsolete 2135 and replace it with a current version.
It's unsafe, though, since the only valid version is the one
at the URL I sent.

2134 is still valid, fwiw.

   Brian

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 10:46:50 +0200

i continue to be amazed at our hubris to presume we can tell other
bodies what processes to use to make their decisions.

randy