Re: [idn] SUMMARY: reordering strawpoll

["James Seng/Personal" <jseng@pobox.org.sg>]

> The chair's stated purpose in asking for comments was to try to get
> additional feedback on the interpretation of the results of the poll.
Do
> you think this is improper? How do you think the wg should move
> procedurally to resolve this issue? James obviously feels that he
> shouldn't just declare re-ordering to be dead by fiat, and yet it
> is clearly outnumbered.

Just one clarification:

strawpoll is just one tool which the chairs used to guage rough
consensus. There are other ways including looking at the discussion
taken place in the group. From these many source of information, the
chairs would then have to make a "decision".

If the chairs make a right guess, then many people happy and we move on.
Some would be unhappy of course but that is why it is "rough". If the
chairs make a wrong guess, then some people are happy, many are unhappy.
Then we will be back to RFC2026 appeal process. (Of course, the unhappy
people can always go thru RFC2026 appeal process even if it is the
former case where there is rough consensus).

Now the strawpoll are done, it tells the chairs and the group some
information. Obviously there are many expert within this group does not
think reordering should be added. However, there are groups of users who
really wants it.

The question now move forward is what we going to do with reordering.
And as co-chair, I heard to comment, in simple summary:

1. Bruce suggest that we drop reordering and move on.

2. Eric suggest we do two proposal, one with reordering, one without,
then move on.

Both are possible next step we can take. But if the co-chairs need to
make a right guess^H^H^H^H^Hdecision on the rough consensus, we need to
see more discussion on the next step. And that is what I am trying to
prompt the group to do.

Please give your feedback thanks.

-James Seng