Re: Question 1 about deadlock issue

[Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>]

Speaking as chair.

While this is an interesting point to know,  and I would like to
see people respond to it, I am uncomfortable with the notion of
change for change sake and for deciding to change something
before we know what we are changing it to.

The way this WG has been treating change to the Nomcom process is
that there has to be positive rough consensus for a particular change
before we remove old text.  I do not think we should deviate from
that practice on this question.

At the moment it looks like we are headed toward consensus on a
combination of proposals but it is a too early to call it.

What I think I see developing is a 2 part solution where:

1st - the confirmation procedure defers to the CB if they have a 
documented terminating procedure in place.
2nd - includes selection A as the default process for the CB without
a process in place.

But, I would like to hear more voices on the question in the next couple
of days.

a.

RJ Atkinson wrote:
> Does anyone here believe that the current confirmation text should be 
> retained
> as-is ?
>
> Please speak up on-list if you believe in retaining the current confirmation
> process text as-is.  I'd be interested to understand the rationale for
> retaining it if anyone wants to retain it.
>
> Silence will be interpreted as agreement that the current text at issue
> either (1) should be edited in some manner xor (2) deleted entirely.
>
> My goal here is to try to validate that there is broad belief that the
> current text should not remain as-is in the final RFC, ignoring for
> the moment the question of what change the WG prefers to undertake.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ran
> rja@extremenetworks.com
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/subscribe>