Re: WG last call on tunneling scenarios

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>]

Hi David,

Well, is how I feel it. Is long to explain here, and probably not worth to
do it and continue this thread (unless you ask for it explicitly, then no
problem from my side), but I will be happy to talk to you and the chairs
during the meeting, if you have some time.

Anyway, as you said, you talked about the future of the WG, which clearly is
relevant for the WG itself, right ?

In my opinion, it will be much more useful, instead of just talking about it
during the meeting (and more fair because some people could not attend), to
open this thread NOW in the mail exploder, with any suggestions that you,
the chairs, whoever can have.

At this way, the WG can start thinking on it, providing inputs (hopefully),
and have a more clear and open discussion in the meeting, and then I guess a
final decision immediately after in the mailing list.

Also, reading one of the recent emails from Pekka, it seems to me that the
decision about asking the WG to get some documents as WG items (and not
others), has been taken, instead about asking the WG about all. I don't
agree with that procedure, while clearly it can be done more openly and the
WG can have a more fair decision (not a semi-driven one). But again, is my
point of view, which may be wrong, or different from others in the WG.

Regards,
Jordi


> De: David Kessens <david.kessens@nokia.com>
> Responder a: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Fecha: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 21:50:50 -0800
> Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
> CC: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Asunto: Re: WG last call on tunneling scenarios
> 
> 
> 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
> ---
> 
> 



**********************************
Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit
Presentations and videos on line at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.