Re: Alternative (H2)

[RJ Atkinson <rja@extremenetworks.com>]

On Sunday, Jun 1, 2003, at 11:01 America/Montreal, Robert Elz wrote:
>   | 	My primary goal is to ensure that we get some decision,
>
> Yes, that's what I thought, and that's what I think is the wrong 
> approach.
>
> Rather, what we should be doing is defining what happens when no 
> decision
> is obtained (no matter what reason), rather than attempting to 
> arbitrarily
> force one.   This is more general, simpler, and with less side issues 
> to
> deal with.

H2 does precisely what you seem to wish, because it ensures that some 
decision
is obtained -- by defining what happens if the CB doesn't reach a 
conclusion
to confirm.  So the approaches appear to me to be identical in practice.

In particular, H2 says that if no decision is reached to confirm, the 
default
is to reject. Between a default of confirm or a default of reject, 
reasonable
people could make different choices, of course.

(I do believe that we are tripping over words here; the joys of 
different
dialects of English. :-(

> Fine, but what about a possible unwillingness to make a decision.
> While we're fixing it, now it has our attention, why not fix all cases?

I believe that case is handled by H2 as it is.

>   | 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.
>
> I sent proposed text several days ago (without the luxury of an 
> appended
> letter, but I think we can survive without that).

Please resend that proposed text (with or without letter) as I did not
see that note from you.  Feel free to send it privately if you prefer.

So far, to the extent I'm understanding your meaning, it appears that H2
does what you desire.  Hence I am confused somewhat by your comments.

Thanks,

Ran