Subject: Re: [Roll] misunderstanding (was: WG is a first class reviewer, not second)

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 15:48:31 +0200

David - there may have been a misundertsanding, sorry on my side.  I
will try to better understand who are the authours and the respective
technical aspects.

Let's see further,

Alex

Le 26/07/2010 12:54, David Culler a écrit :
> Alex, I do not understand what is your current disappointment, but
> let me clarify.  In the IETF, decisions are made through rough
> consensus AND running code.  That process is conducted through the
> WG email.  (That is why it is important to exercise care and though
> in posting to the list.)  The RPL DT was formed after several ID's
> presented alternative protocol approaches.  It include broad
> representation from the WG.  It was dissolved when the initial RPL
> draft was accepted as a WG document.  As the refine process
> proceeded, certain other members of the WG who contributed very
> substantially joined in as authors and some less involved dropped
> out.  All 10 versions of the RPL spec have been extensively reviewed
> by the working group.  We are currently in LC on 10.  While the
> comments have been coming in, the authors have been addressing them.
> All of those fixes will appear in 11.  Of course you need to freeze
> a version of the document to obtain comments.  This is precisely to
> avoid it being a moving target.  Of course, those changes will be
> reflected in the next version.  Of course, you can start working on
> that before the very last ticket appears.
>
> So is your concern that the authors are doing their job and
> preparing the response to LC on 10 in order to produce the resolution
> in 11 in a timely fashion?
>
> I'm glad to hear that you are concerned about wasting time.  To
> avoid wasting the time of all the members of the WG, each individual
> must think carefully through the questions he/she posts to the list.
> We encourage all questions and clarifications, but the more well
> formed the post, to more useful the response.
>
>
> On Jul 25, 2010, at 2:44 AM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
>
>> Chairs,
>>
>> With all due respect - I would like to express disappointment.
>>
>> I consider the WG as a first class reviewer, not second.  I
>> thought the DT was closed and discussion happened on the WG list
>> exclusively. Spinning a private 11 version draft and asking for
>> reviewing the public 10 draft is not kind to reviewer - it makes
>> her/him waste a good amount of time.
>>
>> I copy the list to show that list is important.
>>
>> Alex _______________________________________________ Roll mailing
>> list [email-masked] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
>
>