Re: Question 1 about deadlock issue

[RJ Atkinson <rja@extremenetworks.com>]

On Tuesday, May 13, 2003, at 20:41 America/Montreal, Avri Doria wrote:
> 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.

Change for the sake of change has NEVER been on the list on this
thread.  Change to remove a known operational problem (deadlock
state that has actually occurred) is what is being discussed.

> 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.

That is not a requirement from RFC-2026 as amended.  So the Chair
has no leg to stand on in trying to force the process outlined.

> 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.

We might or might not be heading to consensus.  Chair stifling
legitimate list discussion (as the note being replied do has
already done) is not terribly helpful.

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

With the Chair's hat on, the Chair ought not be telling the
WG what the WG is permitted to think.  Please let the discussion
flow for several days or even a week.  The WG might or might
not converge, but heavy-handed chair interference isn't helpful
at this early stage.

IMHO,

Ran Atkinson
rja@extremenetworks.com