Subject: [i2rs] On +1

From: Jamal Hadi Salim <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2014 06:51:28 -0400

Folks,

No offense intended,  but can we please have something a little more
profound than a +1 when
agreeing or disagreeing?
All i can see in my head when someone says +1 is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_j9QeUoPOi4

I think a +1 should complete with "because ...."

cheers,
jamal

---

From: David Meyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2014 10:23:10 -0700

> I think a +1 should complete with "because ...."

Thank you for your opinion but I trust my that my colleagues are
capable of expressing their support (or lack there of) in the way that
want to. In addition, given the breadth and depth of this thread (and
associated history) I don't see the need to recapitulate the arguments
made here in order to agree (or disagree) with the stated direction.

--dmm

>
> cheers,
> jamal
>
> _______________________________________________
> i2rs mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs

---

From: Thomas Nadeau <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2014 12:39:53 -0500

That was most definitely the purpose of my last +1. My intend wasn't "me too", but a shorthand for not rewriting exactly what Jan had said.

I'd advise we keep the process management in the hands of the chairs.

Tom 

> On Apr 19, 2014, at 12:23 PM, David Meyer <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: "Susan Hares" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2014 19:04:16 -0400

Tom:

100% agree on the process management in the hands of the chair.   Thanks for
the email clarification since the verbal pointed toward "tech-only".  I hope
Ed or Jeff will comment. 

Sue 

-----Original Message-----
From: i2rs [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Thomas Nadeau
Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2014 1:40 PM
To: David Meyer
Cc: [email-masked]; Jamal Hadi Salim
Subject: Re: [i2rs] On +1

That was most definitely the purpose of my last +1. My intend wasn't "me
too", but a shorthand for not rewriting exactly what Jan had said.

Tom 

>> profound than a +1 when agreeing or disagreeing?

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2014 02:27:14 +0200

I disagree mostly and may agree if no there were no WG discussion.  IMO any
participant can input even with humming in meeting so on lists +1 is like
humming yes, -1 humming no (without reasons). On the other hand, we need
to have discussions with reasons on all issues, so I prefer if we point to
the issue that had no discussion with reason before the hummings, or open
subject discussion within WG for clarification.

AB

> No offense intended,  but can we please have something a little more

Was there discussion before that? The reasons may be related to discussions
in past. What is your point? When was there voting before discussions?

> very nice, high five <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_j9QeUoPOi4>

For me is means humming YES (remotely).

> I think a +1 should complete with "because ...."

No always.

> [email-masked] <javascript:;>

---

From: Jamal Hadi Salim <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2014 20:56:24 -0400

The posting from the chair was to have a discussion towards a consensus
and an eventual draft.
In the meeting people could hum to "do you like the blue shirt"; they could
raise their hands to agree with somebody's presentation. But if the chair
asks for discussion's raising your hand or humming is not as useful.
Another analogy:
If i someone said "should we go for dinner?" - then a +1 is appropriate.
If someone said "what should we have for dinner?" - then an abundance of +1 is
not useful. The former is a vote and the later is a discussion.
I believe we are supposed to have a discussion.

In any case - I am sorry i started this discussion; it is distracting.

cheers,
jamal

On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 8:27 PM, Abdussalam Baryun
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> humming yes, -1 humming no (without reasons). On the other hand, we need to
> have discussions with reasons on all issues, so I prefer if we point to the
> issue that had no discussion with reason before the hummings, or open
>> very nice, high five