Re: Alternative (H2)

[RJ Atkinson <rja@extremenetworks.com>]

On Saturday, May 31, 2003, at 14:57 America/Montreal, Robert Elz wrote:
>   | We *do* care that the Confirming Body doesn't deadlock without
>   | any decision,
>
> No, we don't.  What we care about is getting a decision.  If there's
> no decision, it is irrelevant whether it is because of deadlock, or
> because they haven't even met once to consider the issue, or ...

I'm sorry for my unclear use of language.

To try to be clear, in the English language as used in Virginia, where
I happen to live, "deadlock" has the meaning "not getting a decision".

> You're focussing on solving a particular problem you saw, and not
> looking at the broader issue.

	Wrong.  I'm looking at the whole issue, including but not in any way
limited to the specific problem being discussed right now.

	My primary goal is to ensure that we get some decision,
which is one reason that I started by proposing several different
possible approaches to ensuring that a decision is reached.

>   | So Harald's assessment is quite correct IMHO:
>   | 	- As soon as IAB creates their own rules, the contingent rule
>   | 	  no longer applies.
>
> First, it isn't "the IAB", it is "the conforming body", and second,
> we really should not care how they make a decision.

The problem we are fixing is a known *inability* to make a decision
in some cases.

> Once again, the right way to fix this, is to decide what should happen 
> if
> the confirming body says neither yes, nor no within a reasonable 
> period.

If you really think you will persuade folks, a more productive approach
might be to post some specific proposed text (call it "J" maybe)
and see if others buy into that.

So far, I'm not at all persuaded by your commentary.
I remain quite happy with the H2 language as solving the known problem.

Best wishes,

Ran
rja@extremenetworks.com