Re: FW: AD response to Site-Local Appeal

[David Borman <dab@windriver.com>]

> From: Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>
> To: Margaret Wasserman <mrw@windriver.com>
> cc: ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com, iesg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: FW: AD response to Site-Local Appeal 
> Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 19:02:02 +0700
>
>     Date:        Sun, 03 Aug 2003 12:33:08 -0400
>     From:        Margaret Wasserman <mrw@windriver.com>
>     Message-ID:  <5.1.0.14.2.20030803114743.066ddbf8@mail.windriver.com>
...
>   | This is incorrect.  One person did publicly change his mind (David
>   | Borman, in a message sent to the list on April 4th), and this
>   | was publicly acknowledged and supported in mail sent by me on
>   | April 5th.  No one else indicated a desire to change his/her mind.
>
> Yes, one was willing to violate the original stated rules, which
> were quite explicit that no-one who had expressed an opinion in the
> face to face meeting was allowed to talk again.   Dave made it quite
> clear in his message that he wasn't sure that what he wanted to do
> was allowed.
>
> I can't even imagine just why the "don't send a message again" nonsense
> was in the original "consensus call" at all.

I agree that this aspect could have been handled a bit cleaner in the
original consensus call.  My understanding was that the WG chairs only
wanted *new* votes, since those that voted at the face-to-face meeting
had already been counted and they didn't want to count them twice (that
seems like a good idea).

But in response to my message requesting to change my vote, Margaret
replied to the entire list:

> Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2003 07:08:11 -0500
> To: David Borman <dab@bsdi.com>
> From: Margaret Wasserman <mrw@windriver.com>
> Subject: Re: CONSENSUS CALL: Deprecating Site-Local Addressing
> Cc: ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com
> 
> Hi David,
> 
> At 05:05 PM 4/4/2003 -0600, David Borman wrote:
> >Well, if I am allowed to, I am now changing my vote to:
> >
> >         "YES -- Deprecate site-local unicast addressing".
> 
> Yes, you are allowed to change your opinion and we will
> consider your new position in our consensus determination.
> 
> The primary way we reach consensus is by people changing
> their opinions, over time, based on new information or
> further understanding.  So, if you have changed your
> mind (based on subsequent discussion, clarification of
> the question or just further thought) please feel free to
> update your previously expressed opinion.
> 
> If you do change your opinion, though, please observe
> the following rules:
> 
>          - Send your change of opinion in this thread (using
>                  the subject above).
>          - Make your new opinion very clear (YES or NO).
>          - State how you expressed your original opinion
>                  (at the meeting, or on the list).
>          - If you expressed your original opinion on the list,
>                  please use the same e-mail address to send
>                  your new opinion (or at least mention any
>                  change).
> 
> Thanks,
> Margaret

So, within a few days, everybody on the mailing list knew explicitly
that you could change your mind and re-vote, no matter whether you
originally voted at the face-to-face meeting or on the mailing list.

			-David Borman