Re: WG last call on tunneling scenarios

[David Kessens <david.kessens@nokia.com>]

Jordi,

On Sun, Oct 31, 2004 at 08:06:36PM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> 
> Let me explain. In general I feel that there is too much secret discussions
> among the ADs and the co-chairs. I never understood why this talks doesn't
> happen within the WG mail exploder, to get other inputs, ideas, or whatever
> from the WG. Even if you only get a couple of them, they might be useful.

This is from far the truth and you know that. The things that we
discuss privately are mostly about procedural issues and follow up on
documents that are in IESG review.

The only topic outside this category that we recently talked about is
the future of the working group. I already mentioned at last IETF
meeting that this a topic is soon going to be important for the simple
reason that most work items are now close to completion. Normally, in
the life of an IETF working group, that is a good time to start
thinking about what is next. Note that the discussions that we had
were *not* to make decisions, they were intended to explore the
various options that exist.

In order to discuss this further in all openness we asked the chairs
to allocate some time on the agenda to talk about this:

---
Discussion of the way forward - 15 mins, Chairs/ADs
 - GOAL: discuss and get consensus on how to proceed from here
---

(and yes, I think we could possibly use a bit more than 15 minutes :-))

> So, I absolutely disagree with the way the decisions are being taken. This
> is not consensus, is probably something closer to a semi-dictatorial
> process, and don't take me wrong, you know that I don't have anything
> personally against anyone, ADs and co-chairs included, but I prefer much
> more being honest, open and clear. 

This paragraph is very close to accusing the ADs and the co-chairs of
dishonesty. I hope you tried to say something different :-). 
 
David Kessens
---