[lacnog] Fwd: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function)

[Fernando Gont]

Estimados,

Esto sucede actualmente en 6man.

P.S.: Para que cuando a alguno le cuenten esa historia de que se
participa de manera individual, y que somos todos hippies haciendo lo
mejor por internet, tengan material para mostrar que hay *mucho* de
vendors llevando adelante su agenda.

(lo "positivo" de este caso en particular, es que no fui el unico que habló)



-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about
SRv6 Insert function)
Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2019 00:19:48 +0200
From: Sander Steffann <sander en steffann.nl>
To: Ole Troan <otroan en employees.org>
CC: Fernando Gont <fgont en si6networks.com>, 6man WG <ipv6 en ietf.org>,
Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu en gmail.com>, spring en ietf.org
<spring en ietf.org>

Hi Ole,

> Proposals are judged on their merits. 
> There is no protocol police. 

There is existing consensus, and changing that requires consensus on the
changes. The onus is on those wanting the change, yet you demand the
ones referring to the existing consensus to defend themselves. That is
not their responsibility.

> These proposals are not moving as far as I can see. So what are you trying to achieve by getting your collective knickers in a twist now?

Seeing extremely bad precedent being set by a chair. Chairs have the
responsibility to stand up for the consensus in their working group.
Always. No matter their personal opinion. No matter who they work for.
Always.

The discussion has been had, consensus has been reached. Requiring
someone else to defend an existing consensus is disrespectful to the
working group that worked towards that consensus.

Sander


.