Re: [idn] Future of the requirements document

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

> > The minutes of the meeting will be posted soon. You can draw your
own
> > conclusion on the "rough consensus" then.
>
> You are referring to the "rough consensus" of those contributors who
were
> in a room in Salt Lake City.

Yes.

> While interesting, the working group process
> places the venue in which "rough consensus" authoritatively forms in
the
> working group itself.

No, as I said, your objection is noted.

> > ps: comparing criteria for wg i-ds and WG co-chairs proposed next
step
> > is apple and orange.
>
> The issue here is the openness of the process of the IDN WG.

They are fundamentally different. One is a process which the group have
agreed upon to narrow down our focus on I-Ds. The other is a process
which the co-chairs do to make progress. Their is nothing "close" or
"secretive" about it. All co-chairs statement are made public.

> Please see rfc2026, section 6.5.
>
> Your failure to observe open review will result in a my making a
second
> assertion of process error.

Anyone can make process error appeal, anytime, anywhere, whenever he/she
feel it, with valid reasons or without.

While I am not suggesting you to do so, this is not a basis of argument
to prevent us from moving forward. Someone here once said "the fear of
lawsuit should not prevent the business moving on".

IDN is a sufficient important enough working group that we have enough
members from IAB & IESG who is monitoring this group. If there is indeed
any process error as you indicated, I am sure we will hear from them so
fast before you need to say it.

So, having said that, I do not see any technical value in this argument
in IDN anymore nor is this in the core-interest of the group. I suggest
you bring this thread offline or to another group (poised comes to mind)
if you wish to continue this. It is disruptive to those who wish to make
progress here.

-James Seng