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

["Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS" <gash@att.com>]

Bert,

> If not enough people (and 10 is the absolute minimum, but having seen
> the attendance of TEWG sessions, I'd expect 25 or more) can speak up
> to state one of:
> 
>  - I read it and I am positive, it is good stuff
>  - I read it and I see no problems or objections
>  - I read it but I cannot determine if it is bad, but I can see that
>    what has been discussed in the WG is indeed in the document
>  - I read it and I have these nits/objections...
>  - I did not read it cause this is not relevant to my xxx 
> job/work/function
>  - I did not read it cause I think this is nonsense

Can you clarify if you're asking for us to vote/comment on something, and if so, what?

The 'weak turnout' comments were in regard to the BC model references, and I think Francois explained that there has been much discussion of that topic along the way.  As you might recall, at least 30-40 people 'voted' on this issue at the Atlanta meeting.  Why there were few comments in the last iteration on this discussion is unclear.
 
Are you perhaps asking us to reaffirm interest in DSTE, and if so, why?  

I believe the 'weak turnout' discussion may have gotten a bit confused between a BC model reference discussion and DSTE requirements updates in response to IESG comments.  Many people have commented on the DSTE requirements draft, clearly many have read it several times.  The requirements draft has just been through IESG review, and that's what is being discussed, right?  There are various changes that Francois seems to have resolved with you.  My assumption is that Francois and Wai Sum will now make the proposed changes, and re-submit the DSTE requirements draft to the IESG, correct?

Please clarify if you are asking for TEWG members to comment on anything further.

Thanks,
Jerry