Subject: RE: [Isms] Rough Consensus Declaration: ISMS Architecture is EK

From: "Nelson, David" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 15:17:07 -0400

Ken Hornstein writes...

> I'm not sure what else we could have done.

Given the end-of-April deadline, not much. :-(

If more time had been available, you could have knocked out the lowest
scoring choice and called a run-off poll between the remaining two.  Of
course, if the "votes" from the eliminated contender split fairly evenly
between the remaining contenders, we'd be in exactly the same position.

Given that multiple choices could be selected in the last round of
polling, the likelihood that a run-off poll would yield substantially
different results is fairly low.

_______________________________________________
Isms mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isms

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 22:15:19 +0200

> between the remaining contenders, we'd be in exactly the same position.

This is IMHO an illusion. Having followed this list from the beginning,
I hardly see really new contributions. People have different requirements
for pretty good reasons and since we have to select one there is little
hope to get to a clearer result by just waiting longer and doing more
elaborate measures of consensus.

We either stop now or we pick a direction. We have already wasted quite
some time on this decision and it is time to either move forward or to
simply give up.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder		    International University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	    P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany