[Internal-cg] Consensus call: Community comments handling
kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Thu Apr 16 11:01:59 UTC 2015
Pls be reminded that in the Consensus building document that we worked for
several months ago in which there was no mention of so-called “ROUGHT
CONSENSUS “which is practiced in your own community and not in ICG .That
rough or soft consensus was strongly rejected. Please carefully read that
consensus building document .It is not appropriate that such document which
established the basis of our works and completed after more than 300
e-email message be ignored
We need to be consistent and respect our earlier decision and agreement.
My suggestions for a simple rewording has been supported and you need to
take that into account
I do not agree with your position as it is not consistent with what we have
decided before . You can not ignor all those agreement and just refer to
“ROUGH CONSENSUS “which was totally disagreed from the very beginning
We need to be practical and comply with our charter.
Comments received should first be considered by ICG, if it requires reply,
the reply should be give. If it needs to be sent to OCs ofor further
analysis and reply ,once so decided by ICG that action should be done.
The decision making ENITY is ICG and not the OCs .
Comments received should not left as an optional process by OCs they must
be treated properly.
Many evidence were witnessed that some OC do not wish to answer the
Then what is the role of the ICG?
Community expects a proper action from ICG,
The issue is not so difficult
Pls do not make a mass of that.
Joseph has made some edits, Milton implicitly agreed with my edits
Pls keep calm and allow us to work. Make your efforts to converge and not
This is an important matter left from Singapore
2015-04-16 11:56 GMT+02:00 Joseph Alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>:
> We are in agreement except for one nuance. When it comes to ICG I agree
> our actions are in our discretion and answers must come to us.
> As you know, I have been an advocate of consultation and transparency; if
> a person sends us a question related to an OC propsal which we believe has
> been answered in the OC propsals or which we do not see as worthy of follow
> up- excluding the spam Patrik noted- we should still forward that question
> on an OC propsal to the OC in question so they can decide if they need to
> answer or explain their actions further to optimize community consensus.
> We need maximum transparency and consensus across all of our efforts...
> I hope this helps clarify the thinking related to the need to forward
> questions that should have better been addressed to the OC...
> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kavouss Arasteh [kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com]
> Received: Thursday, 16 Apr 2015, 4:41AM
> To: Joseph Alhadeff [joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com]
> CC: paf at frobbit.se [paf at frobbit.se]; internal-cg at ianacg.org [
> internal-cg at ianacg.org]
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: Community comments handling
> Dear Joseph
> Exactly . It is only and only ICG who decides to whether or not a comment
> received needs to be replied and not all comments.
> Once again the choice us within ICG and nit OCs
> Sent from my iPhone
> > On 16 Apr 2015, at 09:57, Joseph Alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>
> > As to a it is our option not obligation to every comment.
> > Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Patrik Fältström [paf at frobbit.se]
> > Received: Thursday, 16 Apr 2015, 2:16AM
> > To: joseph alhadeff [joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com]
> > CC: internal-cg at ianacg.org [internal-cg at ianacg.org]
> > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Consensus call: Community comments handling
> >> On 16 apr 2015, at 00:09, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>
> >> Choices:
> >> a. We decide that the comment we received is worthy of our own follow
> up and it inspires us to ask the same or related question(s) to the
> proposal drafters. This we have the ability to do at all times.
> >> b. As the comment goes to a proposal as opposed to our process or the
> joint proposal, we are not in a position to properly answer the question.
> As such we could forward the question to the correct community, on the
> chance that the asker of the question may not have also addressed the
> >> c. Since we are working transparently, I assume all of the questions
> we receive will be available online. If a community commits to keeping
> watch for relevant comments then we don't have to worry about forwarding
> >> Options b and c in no way limit our rights and abilities under a. b
> and c are merely concepts that assure the greatest transparency and
> assurance that comments are routed to those groups best able to address
> them. It takes a no wrong door approach to comments and helps assure that
> those not familiar with the consultation process are also able to get their
> questions heard.
> > We also have d. various trolls and denial of service attacks that we can
> at point of inspection "just ignore". Specifically because of b. and c. And
> b. issues might be picked up by the OC themselves. Either because it was
> adressed to them as well as ICG, or because they saw it (according to c.).
> > I.e. we are inspired by whatever comments come in, and might ask/forward
> questions to the OC's. OC's can also watch the list and act themselves on
> whatever is sent in.
> > But I do not see us or OC be required to act on _every_ comment coming
> in. Specifically not having ICG send _every_ comment to the OC's for action.
> > Patrik
> > _______________________________________________
> > Internal-cg mailing list
> > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Internal-cg