Gert,
while this was more of a cosmetic change and while this proposal did
have support an no objections, I think that 4-5 e-mails of support
should have at least required an extended discussion/review phase.
Especially since in last call nobody said a word.
my 2 cents.
Elvis
On 8/29/18 14:32, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 07:20:07AM +0300, Aleksey Bulgakov wrote:
But is there any reasons to comment something? We did it for 2015-01, but
you declared consensus.
The mail where I declared consensus had a summary and detailed reasoning
why decisions were made. That certain people did not like 2015-01 because
it broke their business model of requesting and quickly selling off /22s
is understandable, but that was the whole point of the change - so yes,
the community ignored those complaints.
You know quite well that the WG chairs look very closely at the discussion
and see if there is enough support to call it "rough consensus" or not
(and either send the proposal back, or extent the discussion/review phase)
Gert Doering
-- APWG chair
