[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

        How has this discussion gone down the road of
being a discussion of consensus or not?  There has been
lots and lots of discussion on this topic, it is part of
the charter, and has been discussed at numerous
TE WG meetings over the past few years.

        --Tom


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
> >
> >
>
>
"The difficult, we do immediately. The impossible takes a little longer." -- Air Force Motto

http://www.mkp.com/books_catalog/catalog.asp?ISBN=1-55860-751-X