Subject: issues with the site local consensus call

From: Aidan Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2003 16:21:45 +1000

Hi All,

There has been quite a deal of email on ipng supporting site-local
deprecation, some of which has been sent by people whose opinion I
would normally pay close attention to.  Hence, I have been suprised to
find myself disagreeing with much of that email, and surprised to see
the number of "NO votes" on the list consensus call given the
supposedly clear consensus in the room.

My situation is that I came in to the ipng meeting in the last 5
minutes, and voted NO to deprecation.  Having not heard all the
discussion, I made the assumption that deprecating site local meant
that GUSL and solutions to the intermittently connected case were
going down with the same sinking ship.  I think this is a common
assumption being made by NO voters on the list.

Now from wading through the scads of email on the ipng list, I see
that the position could be more nuanced than that, but I have the
suspicion that I'm still guessing what the real position was.

I have come to the conclusion that the consensus call email on the
list failed to adequately describe what a YES for deprecation actually
entailed, and has pretty effectively shot itself in the foot.

Some observations:

    - there was no clear text summarising what a YES to
      deprecate actually meant (some inkling can be deduced
      from other pieces of email, but you really have to dig)

      Effectively, the only way you would have known what YES -
      deprecate actually meant was if you were physically in the room.
      Hence I think you would need to watch the video to figure it out.

    - the minutes are inadequate material on which to work out
      what happened during the meeting, and the presentation
      doesn't seem to have a lot of bearing either.

    - there were a whole lot of reasons supplied to vote NO in
      the CONSENSUS CALL email,  and none supplied for why you
      might want to vote YES

I think that set list-only people up to vote NO.

Margaret's text in response to the "Consensus on what?" thread is more
like what I would have liked to see in the original call email.

I would like to see a clear summary posted to the list of what the
chairs believe voting "YES, deprecate" during the meeting meant.

Further, I think that deprecation of site-local would be more
palatable if it were linked to a formal statement that the WG treated
the "reasons to vote NO" in the consensus call as work items.
Then there would be fewer reasons to vote NO.

regards
	aidan
____
:wq!

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------