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

["Thomas Telkamp" <telkamp@gblx.net>]

No objections, and suggest we move this forward.

---
Thomas


> Thank you very much Vijay. That was/is exactly what I worry about.
> If not enough people (and 10 is the absolute minumum, but having seen
> the attendence of TWEG sessions, I'd expect 25 or more) can speak up
> to state one of:
>
>  - I read it and I am positive, it is good stuff
>  - I read it and I see no problems or objections
>  - I read it but I cannot determine if it is bad, but I can see that
>    what has been discussed in the WG is indeed in the document
>  - I read it and I have these nits/objections...
>  - I did not read it cause this is not relevant to my xxx
job/work/function
>  - I did not read it cause I think this is nonsense
>
> Then I get the feeling that we're just allowing a small group of
> people push their petty-project through the process. That seems NOT
> good to me. We need serious WG participation in reading and commenting
> in one of these forums above, before we can declare that we have WG
> consensus on a document to be presented to IESG for approval as RFC
> (in whatever form).