Subject: Re: Is there: Discussions, Evaluations, Decisions, Acceptance, Progress?

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 10:33:33 +0200

I Suggest the following:

1) IF any participant disagree in I-D adoption in a WG or any other
decision, THEN, he/she takes a DISCUSS position.

2) Any participant with DISCUSS position related to a subject (he/she
refused)MUST have to take and reply to messages including their good
reasons for their positions, otherwise his/her disagreement has no
engineering value.

3) Any participant (submitter or who disagrees with adoption) SHOULD
have an engineering reference(s) for such input otherwise the Chair
MAY not accept his input in the meeting.

Best Regards
Abdussalam Baryun
++++++++++++++++
The mission of the Internet Engineering Task Force is to make the
Internet work better by producing high-quality and relevant technical
documents that influence the way people design, use, and manage the
Internet. See http://www.ietf.org.

On 8/24/12, Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> For any IETF WG discussion, we recommend reasons/references and equal
> recognistion for progress.
> For any IETF WG evaluation/review, we recommend two way discussions for
> progress.
> For any IETF WG decision, we recommend evaluation and then need rough
> consensus for progress.
> For any IESG decision, we recommend WG input and internet community input
> and their consensus.
>
> IMO, for any IETF-Participant's progress, he/she needs to know *why*
> through discussions/questions, and he/she should make *decisions* for
> the WG's I-Ds/RFCs with his/her community through rough consensus.
> Decisions are accepted by community only if they are discussed or they
> have clear reasons.
>
> Please advise if you agree/disagree, thanks,
>
> Best Regards
> AB
>