Subject: [Geopriv] identify "considerable constituency" or let HELD go

From: John Schnizlein <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 07:05:43 -0500

The chairs have yet to call "for a hum" regarding consensus, or even 
for identification of the "considerable constituency" that was claimed 
during IETF 64 as the reason not to evaluate the possibility of, 
consensus on letting HELD go away from consideration to become a WG 
effort.

When will this old business be resolved?

John

On Dec 12, 2005, at 11:43 AM, Andrew Newton wrote:
Re: [Geopriv] draft minutes from IETF 64
>
> On Dec 9, 2005, at 5:12 PM, John Schnizlein wrote:
>>
> ...
>>         2.4.9 Brian Rosen asked the chairs if they would consider a 
>> hum
>>           with regard to accepting HELD and expressed concern that the
>>           working group was spending too much time discussing this 
>> item
>>           considering it was not a working group document.  James
>>           Winterbottom objected to this and asked for any hum to be
>>           conducted on the mailing list.  The chairs noted that all
>>           IETF consensus decisions had to be sent to the mailing list.
>>           The chairs also noted that while many issues exist with HELD
>>           that there was a considerable constituency interested in the
>>           work and therefore the working group would continue
>>           evalutaing the proposal until all aspects were well
>>           understood.
>>
>> I heard Brian's request a little differently - that we get a sense of 
>> the room if we wanted to pursue this effort after three versions of 
>> the proposal with similar concerns remaining.
>
> This is a more specific statement.  If Brian doesn't object, I see no 
> reason why the minutes should not be modified to reflect this more 
> specific statement.
>
>>   While WG consensus should be established on its mailing list, 
>> refusal to take a sense of the room when requested is unusual in the 
>> IETF.
>
> That's your opinion.  I don't see how it relates to the minutes of the 
> meeting.
>
>>   The chairs should request identification of the "considerable 
>> constituency" on the mailing list as soon as possible.
>
> This is not a bad idea.  But I also don't see how it relates to the 
> minutes of the meeting.

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 13:18:37 -0500

On Jan 26, 2006, at 7:05 AM, John Schnizlein wrote:

> The chairs have yet to call "for a hum" regarding consensus, or  
> even for identification of the "considerable constituency" that was  
> claimed during IETF 64 as the reason not to evaluate the  
> possibility of, consensus on letting HELD go away from  
> consideration to become a WG effort.
>

John,

The feedback given to the HELD authors at the last meeting was that  
they should break the HELD document up into discreet proposals.  That  
is no small task, but they agreed to do it.  Asking the working group  
if they are interested in a certain proposal or set of proposals  
before the documents are published seems premature, especially  
considering HELD is a multi-faceted proposal.  Frankly, I cannot  
judge for myself as an individual participant my interest in HELD as  
it seems to have many different functions.

As far as I know, HELD is not delaying other work, and so there seems  
to be no reason for haste in moving it aside.  Certainly this working  
group has kept other proposals under consideration for much longer  
periods of time.  If you know of work that is being delayed because  
of this, please let us know.

-andy