My point is that I am unable to have any characterization whatsoever since nobody has ever told me the reason that the changes did not go ahead.
And since I have asked for reasons in a plenary and never got any statement that was not phrased in the passive voice, I don't think it is unfair to describe the decision as having been made in private. If the history is not confidential then I want to know what it was. Otherwise I don't see why it is inaccurate to describe the process as top down. If the process is going to be described as consensus based and bottom up then at a minimum the people who take the decision have to be prepared to state their reasons. On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Russ Housley <[email protected]> wrote: > I strongly disagree with this characterization. In my view, too many > things got bundled together, and the thing that was unacceptable too the > whole bundle down. > > Russ > > On 6/24/2010 2:52 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > > Last time the reforms were blocked without the IETF at large even > > knowing who was responsible. It was a decision the IESG took in private > > as if it only affected them and they were the only people who should > > have a say. So much for bottom up organization. > -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
