Re: No consensus on proposed change

On Wednesday, December 1, 2004, at 09:53 AM, Pyda Srisuresh wrote:
> I disagree with your abrupt ruling. This seems arbitrary and untimely. 
> Why? For
> the longest time, there is no discussion of substantive issue on the 
> list. And,
> now, when the discussion is ongoing and the list is busy - you make an 
> abrupt
> call to cut this off. Was this supposed to be a time-bound discussion 
> with a
> dead line? If so, I am not aware of such a dead-line.

This is the mail that I sent out on November 10:
--------
The design team is deadlocked over an issue related to whether
inputs should take the form of an end-to-end description of a
data flow or a description of the specific resources on the
participating middleboxes.  Suresh has promised to post a
description of the problem that he sees to the mailing list, and
I would like to get this resolved within the next several weeks -
by November 26.  Because the difference is over a matter for which
there's already wg consensus it requires a compelling technical
argument for a change in the description.
--------

What we have had over the past several weeks is a public discussion
between members of the design team with very, very little input
from other midcom participants.  I think you've done an excellent
job describing the problem that you've perceived, but even so there
is only one person, you, who feels strongly that this change needs to
be made, and the example from which you're arguing is already a solved
problem using non-midcom technologies.

I have to disagree that there has been progress in the discussion.  
We've
reached that point at which the same points are being reiterated and no
new information is being brought to light.  Given that and given the 
lack
of support for the proposed change, and given the need to get the 
document
wrapped up, it is clearly time to recognize that it's time to close the
discussion and move on.

Thanks,

Melinda