RE: Weak turnout : was-> A proposal for moving ahead on BC models

["Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch)" <flefauch@cisco.com>]

Bert,

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen@lucent.com] 
>> Sent: 21 January 2003 21:25
>> To: Jim Boyle; Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS
>> Cc: te-wg@ops.ietf.org
>> Subject: RE: Weak turnout : was-> A proposal for moving 
>> ahead on BC models
>> 
>> 
>> I would contend that if we onlu have 9 reactions out of 1100
>> or so WG subscribers/members that there is NO WG consensus 
>> to work on this topic.
>> 

What do you mean by ... "no concensus to work on this topic"???

There may be some confusion here. The topic that generated "9 reactions"
was not about whether we should work on BC models. We have been working
on BC models for a while now. It is part of the work on DSTE which
appears on the TEWG charter. BC Models has been, by far, the single item
generating the most dicussion on the TEWG list. It has been, by far, the
single item generating the most discussion at the TEWG meeting itself
(TEWG minutes say "Lots of discussion on this"). These discussions were
not about whether we needed to work on it, but were actually about
comparing/progressing them.
Based on this, I would contend that there is strong concensus to work on
the topic of BC models. 
Are we in line on this?

The specific item that triggered the "9 reactions" related purely to one
particular aspect of how to move ahead on these models: specifically how
the two models we specified should actually be referenced (ie should
they be both default models, one default & one optional and then which
is which, should they go for Informational, Standards track). This is
not necessarily a topic of most passionate debate in a technical
communitee. 

Considering that:
	- this had been discussed extensively at the Atlanta meeting
	- it has been discussed extensively on the list
	- everybody had ample opportunity/time to comment
	- this discussion item only relates to how the models would be
referenced (default/optional)
do we agree this item is suitably closed and we can move ahead on
updating the corresponding refences in the various document (which is
pretty much the last thing holding those)?

Thanks

Francois

 
PS: I am also wondering if we wouldn't have had a few more reactions,
had we issued a slightly more formal call for vote on that topic with a
deadline and a fixed set of options to choose from which reflected the
final part of the discussion we had on the list. But that's beside the
point.

>> Thanks,
>> Bert 
>> 
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Jim Boyle [mailto:jboyle@pdnets.com]
>> > Sent: maandag 20 januari 2003 15:45
>> > To: Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS
>> > Cc: te-wg@ops.ietf.org
>> > Subject: Weak turnout : was-> A proposal for moving ahead 
>> on BC models
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > Hopefully for other calls we can get better turnout than 9 
>> > members out of 
>> > 1100.
>> > 
>> > 
>> > On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS wrote:
>> > 
>> > > 1. my count is 6 to 3.
>> > > 2. a majority, yes, but a thin margin and small sample on 
>> > which to base this decision...
>> > > 
>> > > Jerry
>> > > 
>> > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > From: Jim Boyle [mailto:jboyle@pdnets.com]
>> > > Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2003 10:21 PM
>> > > To: te-wg@ops.ietf.org
>> > > Subject: Re: A proposal for moving ahead on BC models 
>> (conclusion?)
>> > > 
>> > > For the record, I think it best to specify a default model.
>> > > 
>> > > However, assuming Sanjay's second vote masks his first, and 
>> > including my 
>> > > vote above, that would leave us with 6 folks who think we 
>> > should pull the 
>> > > requirement for a default, specified model, and 2 who think 
>> > we should keep 
>> > > it.  That gives us a voter turn-out on our list of less 
>> than 1% ;-(
>> > > 
>> > > So we'll update the requirements document (currently with 
>> > IESG) to reflect 
>> > > no need for a required default BC model.
>> > > 
>> > > Jim
>> > > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> 
>>