On 9/10/2013 3:29 AM, Loa Andersson wrote: > Melinda, > > in general I agree with you - but I would say that the "support > as co-author" is in a group of mails that could be called > "unnecessary but not forbidden".
Right, that's my feeling as well. But I do think that consensus processes are not well-understood, to the detriment of the IETF, and that misunderstanding can be expressed in a variety of ways, including responding to working group last calls with a vote. As the organization has grown and changed over the years this has become more of an issue. It's a very good thing that the IETF has grown and changed, and having a broader set of participants both improves our documents and improves the uptake of our documents, but it does mean that from time to time we need to remind ourselves that we do business a little (or a lot) differently from other standards bodies. One response I've never seen but that would indicate that the person "gets it" would be a response along the lines of "I don't agree with the contents of this document but I made my case during its development, and while I'd like my disagreement noted I will not object to it moving forward." Melinda _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
