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

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

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.

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
> > 
> > 
> 
>