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

["Siva Sivabalan (msiva)" <msiva@cisco.com>]

I have followed DS-TE requirements and protocol development very closely, and
feel that "it is good stuff" and should be moving on.


Thanks,

Siva

At 11:06 AM 1/24/2003 -0500, Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS wrote:
> 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