Re: [idn] Future of the requirements document

[bill@mail.nic.nu (J. William Semich)]

At 09:42 PM 12/12/2001 +0800, James Seng/Personal wrote:
> > > The decision to drop requirements is explained in the wg chairs
> > > statement and is independent of your appeal.
> >
> > Chairs do not decide, they attempt to observe and correctly state the
> > rough consensus of a working group.
>
>Of course. We proposed and we observe how the group see our proposal. As
>I said, your objection is noted. We have also observed others reaction
>to this, not neccessary on the mailing list.

I think that it is *very* important that any "reactions" be posted to the 
public list, especially if they are being used to form a decision as to 
what a "rough consensus" is on these matters


<snip>

> > > But your (and David) volunteer to take over as editor of
>requirements is
> > > also noted. Nevertheless, the value of requirements is lesser now
>and it
> > > is agreed in Salt Lake to drop the requirements. (Minutes will be
> > > available soon).
> >
> > Face to face meetings do not decide, they reach (or don't) some
>consensus,
> > which the working group may (or may not) affirm, again, by rough
>consensus.
>
>Of course. But members feedback to the wg chairs in the face-to-face
>meeting, in corridor/bar converdation and in private emails is as
>important as the mailing list. All these are feedback to the chairs on
>the group rough consensus.
>

Again, I believe it is not appropriate for the chairs to determine "rough 
consensus" based on private communications - all should come from public 
input, not secret comments which can not be discussed in the open.

Bill Semich